Fortnightly - Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)https://www.fortnightly.com/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei
enFacing Nuclear Fearhttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2011/10/facing-nuclear-fear
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Renewing public support after Fukushima Daiichi.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>John A. Bewick</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>John A. Bewick</b> is <i>Fortnightly’s</i> contributing editor and formerly was secretary for environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He holds advanced degrees in nuclear science and business management. His May 2011 article, “Spent Fuel Fedcorp,” examined proposals for a federal corporation to take responsibility for managing commercial nuclear waste.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - October 2011</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Three Mile Island, 1979; Chernobyl, 1986; Fukushima Daiichi, 2011—most who follow world news know the stories of these ill-fated nuclear power plants. But what about Honkeiko Colliery, 1942; Courrieres, 1906; or Monongah, 1907? These mining disasters led to 3,010 fatalities among them, but they’re seldom mentioned in the public forum today.</p>
<p>Nuclear accidents, in spite of fewer immediate fatalities, stimulate far greater long-term negative public reaction than mining incidents do, and they create greater fear. After mining incidents, mining improvements are made, new regulations are set in place, and mining begins again. After nuclear incidents, however, nuclear proponents and investors reduce their public profile, cut back on development and promotion efforts, and even cancel or delay nuclear projects. The news media create a maelstrom of crisis, fear and uncertainty. Anti-nuclear groups gain new strength and marshal their efforts. An incident can set back investment for a generation or more.</p>
<p>Since the Fukushima Daiichi disaster ensued, two European leaders have taken different and highly public stands on nuclear power: French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited the nuclear plant at Gravelines, and was photographed looking over a spent fuel pool, to express solidarity with France’s nuclear power program. Meanwhile, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel announced plans to shut down eight old reactors immediately, and nine remaining plants by 2022. Many countries have put nuclear expansion on hold until the lessons from Fukushima are better understood—Japan and China among them.</p>
<p>In the United States, the reactions have been just as diverse; while New York Governor Andrew Cuomo asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to close the Indian Point reactor, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg supported relicensing the same reactor, saying that its closing could cause blackouts in the city.</p>
<p>In response to bad press and deteriorating public perception of nuclear energy, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) worked to publicize the U.S. nuclear power industry’s 90 percent availability record, its stringent operating standards, and the billions of dollars that have been spent to improve safety. NEI observed that there have been no major abnormal occurrences in U.S. nuclear power plants in the last eight years. Yet fears about nuclear safety have persisted. An unusual earthquake on the East Coast, centered in Richmond, Va., raised questions about the Lake Anna plant’s vulnerability to temblors. Flooding of the Missouri River focused attention on the safety of Nebraska nuclear plants. And a deadly industrial accident near France’s Marcoule spent-fuel processing center served to intensify fears about nuclear power around the world.</p>
<p>In the wake of the disaster in Japan, the U.S. nuclear power industry is taking stock of its status and outlook for the future. What will the industry and regulatory authorities learn from Fukushima Daiichi, and what direction will they take as a result? How does the nuclear industry deal with fear and reality when it comes to explaining risks and opportunities of nuclear power? What education and outreach strategies can make a difference to public perception?</p>
<h4>Incidents and Reactions</h4>
<p>In 2010, 62 percent of the U.S. public supported nuclear power.<sup><b>1</b></sup> Since the Fukushima disaster, support for nuclear power in the United States has dropped to 43 percent.<sup><b>2</b></sup> On the other hand, another poll indicates that 60 percent of respondents say there’s no difference in their support for nuclear power since Fukushima,<sup><b>3</b></sup> and 59 percent express support if new plants are located in earthquake-free zones, and away from large populations.<sup><b>4 </b></sup>In Congress there’s a split between Republican support (52 percent) vs. Democrat opposition (65 percent) to more nuclear power plants.</p>
<p>Regional support for nuclear power differs. Nuclear industry media experts point out there continues to be strong local support for nuclear power plants from New Jersey to the South and Southwest, where the economic benefits are tangible. These plants provide jobs, and many people know someone who works at a nuclear plant. 82 percent of Americans living in close proximity to nuclear power plants favor nuclear energy, and 71 percent are willing to see a new reactor built near them, according to a public opinion survey of more than 1,100 adults across the United States conducted for NEI in July and August, 2011, by Bisconti Research Inc. with Quest Global Research Group. That contrasts with strong local opposition in Vermont and parts of New York.</p>
<p>In 1979, when the Three Mile Island incident occurred, there were other concerns that offset fears about nuclear risks. A revolt in Iran threatened oil supplies and raised concerns about dependence on foreign oil—just six years after OPEC had imposed an oil embargo and sparked a global energy crisis. In that context, public support for nuclear power remained high. It took three years after the Three Mile Island incident for public support for nuclear power to drop from 52 percent at the time of the accident to 38 percent in November 1982. By then, the energy crisis was off the front pages, and support for nuclear power had eroded.</p>
<p>Then came the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, raising new fears about nuclear safety. Six months later, however, support for nuclear actually increased from 44 percent to 52 percent because environmental critics and proponents alike had educated the public that U.S. reactors were safer than those in the Ukraine, with strong containment structures, and that the industry had benefited from the lessons from the TMI incident.<sup><b>5 </b></sup></p>
<p>After TMI, which was caused by human error, the nuclear industry responded by improving its training practices and launching an educational and promotional campaign on the safety of nuclear power plants. The industry also formed the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), which instituted better training methods for operators, regular evaluations of plant operations, and assistance to help nuclear plants improve their performance.</p>
<p>INPO also helped operators establish more efficient maintenance procedures that have increased capacity factors of nuclear plants from the 60 percent range in 1980 to 90 percent in 2010. This was equivalent to expanding nuclear capacity by 50 percent using existing plants. The public is largely unaware of this technological advance.</p>
<p>During the 1990s and 2000s, public acceptance of nuclear power increased and stabilized, as a result of years of outstanding safety performance, the absence of dramatic headlines, new concern about energy independence, and rising awareness about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.</p>
<h4>Psychology of Risk</h4>
<p>After Fukushima, public fear and uncertainty about effects of radiation dominate the news again, far out of proportion to the actual risks of commercial nuclear power. What leads to public fear of nuclear power, and what can be done to lessen that fear? Dr. Robert L. DuPont, a psychiatrist and professor at Georgetown Medical School who specializes in phobias, examined what happened to the perception of nuclear power after TMI, and how the nuclear industry responded in France and in the United States. DuPont explored nuclear fears after the TMI incident in a 1985 article.<sup><b>6</b></sup> There he elaborated on the four factors he had identified that aggravate the fear of nuclear power:</p>
<p>• <i>Risk concentrated in time and space:</i> Many deaths occurring together concentrate a fear response. The memory of the devastation created by atomic bombs used in World War II creates a lingering specter of the awesome power of a nuclear explosion, even if such an explosion wouldn’t occur with civilian nuclear reactors. Many see nuclear power plants as equivalent to nuclear bombs, however, and a nuclear incident leading to loss of life raises a similar fearful response.</p>
<p>• <i>Control:</i> If an individual perceives himself in control of risk, almost no risk is too much. But if someone else controls the risk, almost no risk is acceptable. Cigarette smoking, DuPont observes, kills more than 440,000 Americans annually, but this risk is perceived as acceptable partly because each individual chooses to accept the risk. When there are nuclear power incidents, the situation seems out of control, and more fearsome, despite the comparatively miniscule risk to individuals.</p>
<p>• <i>Familiarity:</i> If a risk is familiar, DuPont argues, we accept it almost no matter what it is. But if it’s unfamiliar, almost no risk is acceptable. DuPont offers fear of flying as an example; 25 million Americans refuse to fly because they’re anxious about a form of travel that’s vastly safer than their everyday habit of driving on public streets. By comparison, few Americans understand how nuclear power works, and fewer have actually ever visited a nuclear power plant, so they are completely unfamiliar with the technology and therefore more likely to fear it.</p>
<p>• <i>Need:</i> If something is perceived as needed, individuals will accept great risks, whereas if a technology or experience isn’t perceived as needed, almost no risk is acceptable. Residents of Carlsbad, N.M., for example, generally accept the nuclear waste repository, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), that provides needed jobs for almost one-third of the local workforce. And some former anti-nuclear environmental figures have come to accept nuclear power as a tool to lower CO<sub>2</sub> in the new battle against climate change. Here, nuclear power is seen to be an ally rather than an enemy. In France, where nuclear reactors generate 76 percent of the country’s electricity, voters support nuclear power because they view it as necessary to maintain their way of life and their independence from imported power fuels.</p>
<p>Fears that arise from these factors, and which aren’t mitigated by need or familiarity, are then reinforced by three additional factors, according to DuPont.</p>
<p>First is media focus. The popular news media have tremendous power to identify, reinforce and feed fears. The post-Fukushima media focus streamed a drumbeat of danger, threat and disaster. Media intensity fuels public fear, which can aggravate stress. Ironically, some studies find that stress about nuclear incidents—even as serious as the Chernobyl meltdown—can have a greater impact on public health than the incident itself.<sup><b>7</b></sup></p>
<p>The second factor is political focus. Political talking points can reinforce fears, and drive voters into a politician’s camp if there’s perceived voter sensitivity to the nuclear issue. As noted earlier, in Germany, following Fukushima, Prime Minister Merkel called for an end to nuclear power, while French President Sarkozy stood by France’s commitment. Once nuclear power becomes “the issue,” it rises to join the top political talking points. But the talking points might have nothing to do with the real technical challenges and issues involved.</p>
<p>The final factor is the blame game. When people’s fears are reinforced by the media and politics, it’s natural for people to seek out scapegoats and enemies.</p>
<p>According to DuPont, the problem is “not an enemy but our own psychology—a psychology of fear.” When we aren’t in control, we are less prone to accept risks that are scary and unfamiliar. Industry reaction to incidents can exacerbate this by scaling back communications efforts just when people most acutely need reassurance that experts are on the job. Some companies become averse to bad publicity and withdraw their media presence, canceling advertising and other outreach efforts, seeming to hide out until the crisis ends. Others scale up their outreach and take creative approaches to reassure the public, as BP did after the Gulf oil spill. Communication strategies and results differ.</p>
<h4>The French Experience</h4>
<p>Because France has no significant resources of coal, natural gas or oil, the French people generally have a common perception of the critical need for nuclear power, which provides more than 3/4ths of the country’s electric power. More than 40 years ago, political leaders in France established nuclear power as the dominant generation resource specifically to ensure the country’s energy independence; specifically, they didn’t want to rely on imports from Libya to fuel oil-fired power plants. As natural gas replaced oil as a primary electric power fuel in Europe, France’s reliance on nuclear has allowed it to avoid reliance on insecure gas supplies from Russia—and to avoid building liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals as many other European countries have done. To achieve additional energy independence and reduce its waste stream, France recycles its spent nuclear fuel.</p>
<p>To support the country’s nuclear power strategy, the French government and power utilities work systematically to educate citizens about nuclear power, and to provide familiarity with the technology through a policy of transparency. In an interview, Laurent Pernot, the director of communications for Areva in the U.S. and former head of the visitor center at Areva’s La Hague reprocessing facility in France, described the mandated program requiring transparency in communications with the French public. French nuclear operating firms publish environmental and safety reports on their websites, especially if an incident occurs. Operators of French power plants meet monthly with local information committees to share everything that has happened, including corrective actions. France’s nuclear power operations are located in easy view of nearby residents, not hidden away in remote locations. Many local residents work at the plants, and each plant has a visitor center that provides education to the public about nuclear power, radiation and plant operations.</p>
<p>Pernot explained that before the September 11, 2011, terrorist attacks, about 10,000 people visited Areva’s nuclear facilities each year. After 9/11, Areva changed its security policies and its plants now receive about 6,000 invited visitors and officials each year. Nevertheless, visitor centers at Areva’s nuclear plants are open to the public, and continue to be well-visited by students, officials and tourists.</p>
<p>Similarly, EDF’s visitor centers had 200,000 visitors last year, while the Gravelines power plant, where President Sarkozy visited in May, welcomed 7,000 visitors.</p>
<p>France’s visitor centers are now shifting their focus from adults to schoolchildren in grades 7 through 12. Visitor centers are equipped with training simulators, providing a hands-on understanding of how reactors are operated.</p>
<p>In the French model, transparency, necessity, familiarity, local involvement and employment opportunities all contribute to strong political support for nuclear power.</p>
<h4>The Japan Scenario</h4>
<p>In contrast to France, Japan’s nuclear industry has a history of secrecy and interconnectedness with the government agencies that both promote and regulate nuclear power. The Fukushima Daiichi incident has revealed this opaque culture, and seems to be driving a major change toward more openness, sharing of data, and a more rapid response to protecting public health with bans on occupancy in contamination zones—unlike the Soviet response to Chernobyl, where policy makers were slow to relocate residents away from the area.</p>
<p>Specifically, Japanese regulators have gained greater independence and authority to require information-sharing from nuclear operators.</p>
<p>Despite being a terrible accident, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster killed only two workers. At this writing, no deaths due to radiation exposure have been documented.<sup><b>8</b></sup> Nevertheless, each day brings new information about the plant failures and continuing uncertainty about control of problems, such as spent fuel rod storage, and the short- and long-term impacts of radiation. And turmoil in Japan’s government has exacerbated the problem; as this issue was going to press, Japan’s Energy Minister Yoshio Hachiro resigned after just eight days on the job, after coming under fire for referring to the no-go zone around the Fukushima Daiichi plant site as a “town of death.”<b>9</b> Perception of the absence of control heightens public anxiety and fear.</p>
<h4>The U.S. Scenario</h4>
<p>Since Fukushima Daiichi, the U.S. nuclear industry is once again on the defensive in responding to safety and radiation fears. While nuclear plants enjoy strong local support, general support in U.S. polls has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in years. Meanwhile, project sponsors have cancelled or delayed several projects in the development pipeline.</p>
<p>Today, 104 nuclear power reactors are operating in the U.S., providing almost 20 percent of our electricity. Since the TMI incident in 1979, no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. While some reactors are in the licensing process, major utilities are also canceling or delaying new nuclear plants in the United States. The NRC is showing only 18 new reactor licensing applications in its queue, down from more than 30. The dramatic decrease in the price of natural gas has affected the market, as has the declining likelihood that the United States will regulate GHG emissions for control of climate change. However, development plans are strongly affected by national media coverage of nuclear risks and weakening political support for new reactors.</p>
<p>Media reports of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan focused heavily on the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, despite the tiny numbers of casualties related to the Daiichi plant incident, compared to the 23,000 fatalities attributed to the earthquake and tsunami, and the hundreds of thousands left homeless. A frightening specter of unknown radiation consequences has left its shadow on the American psyche.</p>
<p>Responding to Fukushima, a consortium of U.S. power associations has gathered to focus on lessons learned, and to strengthen training, emergency response, accident management guidelines, spent fuel management, containment protection, safety, and communications efforts in the nuclear industry.<b>10</b> These include INPO, NEI, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Recognizing the problem arising from media focus on uncertainty, one goal is to coordinate an improved response to future scenarios, and to develop outreach campaigns to “recover policymaker and public support for nuclear energy.”</p>
<h4>Prioritizing Public Outreach</h4>
<p>As a way to reduce fears, DuPont continues to propose educating the public about nuclear power so people become familiar with its operation.<b>11</b> Specifically, visitor centers like those in France have become an effective tool for public education.</p>
<p>Several years ago, NEI organized a task force on visitor centers to promote their use and to update some centers that were established when plants were first built. At present, there are only 23 visitor centers at the 65 nuclear plant sites in the U.S. However, more are being developed.</p>
<p>Intrigued by the potential role of visitor centers, Bill Levis, the head of PSE&amp;G’s nuclear operations, toured visitor centers around the world, and launched the most recent U.S. center at the Salem plant in New Jersey. Contemporary visitor centers like the one at Salem are professionally designed to be interactive and educational. Such a center focuses on energy overall and the environment, and includes a display of the power core of a nuclear power plant. The PSE&amp;G center also promotes education of future nuclear technicians with programs at vocational schools and a nearby junior college. PSE&amp;G donated its exhibit designs to NEI, toward an effort to make visitor centers more standardized and affordable throughout the industry.</p>
<p>Interviews with sources at Duke Energy and Southern Nuclear Co. about their visitor centers are also revealing. Both companies have made significant commitments to public education through their centers, with different approaches and different outcomes. Duke’s visitor center in North Carolina sees about 30,000 visitors per year. Southern Nuclear, with 3,000 visitors a year at its centers, also has developed a comprehensive and informative media package to support its overall outreach efforts.</p>
<p>In addition to visitor centers, nuclear operators can improve public perception through media relations and direct communications efforts, including advertising. In the 1980s, the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) invested $20 million in a national ad campaign to educate the public about nuclear power when members realized that media coverage of the TMI nuclear accident was heightening public fears. Initially the advertising campaign was opposed by the major networks, which refused to accept the advertising. Eventually, two networks were convinced the message was acceptable and non-biased, and ran the ads.</p>
<p>Mark Mills, who led AIF’s communications efforts at the time, recalls that the ads were effective in reaching the public. Then, in the mid-1990s, several <i>Frontline</i> programs on nuclear power brought out the facts about safety and risk, and confronted critics like Ralph Nader with positive evidence from the industry. It seemed like a major turnaround in the media.</p>
<p>Today, after Fukushima, the media is focused on public fears again, but the global energy context is different today from what it was in the 1980s. Concerns about energy independence have peaked in the wake of the Arab Spring, and in the midst of global economic turmoil. Additionally, concerns about climate change remain potent despite retrenchment on federal legislative efforts. Drought-stricken Texas is literally on fire, after the hottest summer on record. The Atlantic coast has been battered and flooded in the most active hurricane season in recent times. And Midwestern floods, tornadoes and generally changing weather patterns have Americans on edge across the country’s breadbasket.</p>
<p>In this context, leaders of the environmental movement have become supporters of nuclear power as an important and essential power option for reducing GHG emissions. They include Stewart Brand, publisher of the <i>Whole Earth Catalog</i>; Stephen Tindale and Patrick Moore, formerly of Greenpeace; Mike Childs, of Friends of the Earth in England; and Steve Cochran, vice president of climate and air for the Environmental Defense Fund.</p>
<p>These trends create a strong foundation for the industry’s communications and outreach efforts <i>(see “Nuclear Outreach Checklist”)</i>.</p>
<h4>Restarting the Renaissance</h4>
<p>Whether nuclear power is seen as a bridge to alternative green energy technologies, or as a permanent participant in the mix of energy sources, it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future. The anticipated nuclear renaissance is on hold at the moment for a variety of reasons—from the new availability of an abundant supply of natural gas, to a renewed sense of fear in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. However, the fundamental drivers for new nuclear construction remain strong, and the nuclear renaissance can resume in the future—but only if it’s supported with public awareness of the truth about nuclear power, its comparative risks, and America’s need for more secure and environmentally friendly energy resources.</p>
<p>The nuclear industry bears an important responsibility for alleviating the fear of nuclear energy and creating a bridge to public understanding and acceptance.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Endnotes:</h4>
<p>1. Gallup poll, 3/22/2011.</p>
<p>2. CBS poll, 3/15/2011.</p>
<p>3. Quinnipiac University, March 22 through 28, 2011.</p>
<p>4. Harris poll, March 23 through 25, 2011.</p>
<p>5. National Surveys by Cambridge Reports for NEI, 1,500 adults.</p>
<p>6. Robert L. DuPont, “<a href="http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf" target="_blank">Understanding the Fear of Nuclear Power: An Example of the Contemporary Fear of Technology</a>,” presented at the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Washington, D.C., December 3, 1985.</p>
<p>7. <i>Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,</i> The Chernobyl Forum, p. 36.</p>
<p>8. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster</a></p>
<p>9. “<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576564313482660614.html" target="_blank">Minister’s Gaffe Hits Japan</a>,” <i>Wall Street Journal,</i> Sept. 12, 2011.</p>
<p>10. “<a href="http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2059858" target="_blank">US nuclear groups band together for Fukushima response</a>,” <i>Nuclear Engineering International,</i> June 14, 2011.</p>
<p>11. “<a href="http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&amp;t=1&amp;islist=false&amp;id=134755650&amp;m=134755603" target="_blank">Fear Stokes Discussions on Nuclear Plants</a>,” <i>Morning Edition,</i> National Public Radio, March 22, 2011.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field-collection-container clearfix"><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar field-type-field-collection field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="field-collection-view clearfix view-mode-full field-collection-view-final"><div class="entity entity-field-collection-item field-collection-item-field-sidebar clearfix">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Nuclear Outreach Checklist</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-body field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Body:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><!--smart_paging_autop_filter--><!--smart_paging_filter--><p>In its collaborative effort responding to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) concluded that the industry must develop an aggressive outreach campaign to educate the public and allay peoples’ fears. This campaign will be accomplished through an expanded program of visitor centers, advertising, public relations, and new educational programs. These efforts should prioritize communications about several key factors affecting public understanding and comfort with nuclear power.</p><p>• <i>Radiation Facts: </i>Educate the public to put radiation in perspective. Teach people about daily and annual background exposure compared to radiation exposure from a nuclear facility. We live in an environment that’s filled with radiation. Most people don’t understand this.</p><p>• <i>Nuclear Incidents and Mitigation: </i>Show how radiation impacts can be reduced after an incident, and reinforce the industry’s commitment to mitigation programs. Be transparent in sharing information.</p><p>• <i>Risk Facts: </i>Put risk in perspective. Compare the chances of dying from radiation vs. smoking or driving.</p><p>• <i>Safety Steps: </i>Inform the public about the safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants compared to those of with other energy sources, such as coal or offshore oil drilling, and describe the industry’s extensive program to ensure safety. Describe modern safety designs and how they prevent incidents like those at Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Explain training and maintenance programs. Communicate the company’s commitment to best-in-industry safety performance.</p><p>• <i>Energy Independence: </i>Teach the public why it’s important to strengthen energy independence, and reduce reliance on foreign oil. Political unrest in the Middle East, tensions involving Venezuela, and the damaging economic effects of oil price volatility can serve to focus public attention on the need for greater energy security.</p><p>• <i>Climate and Environment: </i>Educate the public about environmental risks and opportunities, and the need to reduce fossil-fuel emissions to improve air quality and mitigate climate change. Cite the health effects of smog and particulate emissions. Include the stories of how leading environmentalists today support nuclear power. Recent dramatic weather events reinforce the need to address climate change with energy sources that reduce overall GHG emissions.</p><p>• <i>Technology Leadership: </i>Talk about ongoing efforts to modernize designs to make nuclear power more efficient and inherently safer, and introduce the public to new designs that have been approved or are being tested. Explain modular reactor designs.</p><p>• <i>Spent Fuel Management: </i>Describe the national effort to get a permanent spent fuel storage facility built, including the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Explain dry-cask storage and interim storage proposals aimed at relieving overcrowding in on-site spent fuel pools while a permanent solution is developed.</p><p>• <i>Power Costs: </i>Educate the public about comparative electricity costs, with and without nuclear energy. Polls have shown that even when the public prefers no nuclear, when it comes to paying more, nuclear becomes more acceptable. Talk about the efficiency and availability of nuclear plants vs. fossil fueled and renewable energy plants.</p><p>• <i>Independent Oversight: </i>Educate the public to the role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure safety, and describe the industry’s work to support and strengthen an independent NRC.–JAB</p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/environmental">Environmental</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1"><a href="/article-categories/energy-policy-legislation">Energy Policy &amp; Legislation</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear">Nuclear</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1110/images/1110-fea4.jpg" width="960" height="700" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/aif">AIF</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/andrew-cuomo">Andrew Cuomo</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/angela-merkel">Angela Merkel</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/arab-spring">Arab Spring</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/areva">Areva</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/atomic-industrial-forum">Atomic Industrial Forum</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/bill-levis">Bill Levis</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/bisconti-research-inc">Bisconti Research Inc.</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/chernobyl">Chernobyl</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/china">China</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/communication">Communication</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/courrieres">Courrieres</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/duke-energy">Duke Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/edf">EDF</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research">Electric Power Research</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research-institute">Electric Power Research Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research-institute-epri">Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/environmental-defense-fund">Environmental Defense Fund</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/epri">EPRI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/french-president-nicolas-sarkozy">French President Nicolas Sarkozy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/friends-earth">Friends of the Earth</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/fukushima-daiichi">Fukushima Daiichi</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/georgetown-medical-school">Georgetown Medical School</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/german-prime-minister-angela-merkel">German Prime Minister Angela Merkel</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ghg">GHG</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/governor-andrew-cuomo">Governor Andrew Cuomo</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/gravelines">Gravelines</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/greenpeace">Greenpeace</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/honkeiko-colliery">Honkeiko Colliery</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/indian-point">Indian Point</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/inpo">INPO</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/institute-nuclear-power-operations">Institute for Nuclear Power Operations</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/institute-nuclear-power-operations-inpo">Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ipp">IPP</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/lake-anna">Lake Anna</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/laurent-pernot">Laurent Pernot</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/marcoule">Marcoule</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/mark-mills">Mark Mills</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/mike-childs">Mike Childs</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/monongah">Monongah</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/new-jersey">New Jersey</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/new-york-city-mayor-michael-bloomberg">New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrc">NRC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-accidents">Nuclear accidents</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/outreach">Outreach</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/patrick-moore">Patrick Moore</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/quest-global-research-group">Quest Global Research Group</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/robert-l-dupont">Robert L. DuPont</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/southern-nuclear">Southern Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/stephen-tindale">Stephen Tindale</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/steve-cochran">Steve Cochran</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/stewar">Stewar</a> </div>
</div>
Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0000puradmin13518 at https://www.fortnightly.comCyber Attack!https://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2011/07/cyber-attack
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Protecting critical assets in a hazardous world.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Torsten George</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>Torsten George</b> (<a href="mailto:tgeorge@agiliance.com">tgeorge@agiliance.com</a>) is vice president of worldwide marketing at Agiliance, a provider of security software systems.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - July 2011</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Recent news of an advanced persistent threat at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,<sup>1</sup> a U.S. Department of Energy lab that studies nuclear fusion and biotechnology, and hosts one of the nation’s most powerful supercomputers, has once again brought the issue of cyber security to the top of not just the news, but the mind of many information technology (IT) and security experts in the energy market.</p>
<p>The cyber security challenge is becoming increasingly important for the people responsible for securing the electrical grid, as well as nuclear power generation facilities, oil refineries and gas pipelines. Considering the system complexity they are dealing with, their job isn’t easy. When combating network threats in the forms of viruses, trojans, and worms, many organizations fail to address vulnerable interfaces between their diverse systems or consider how their security infrastructure functions as a whole.</p>
<p>Integration is essential to managing today’s complex security systems. One option for IT administrators is to develop an information security risk management (ISRM) program that interconnects systems, processes and people, helps provide greater visibility, and enables operators to make more intelligent decisions as they relate to the security of an organization. An ISRM program enables organizations to increase system-wide efficiencies and reduce incidents, and ultimately the overall cost.</p>
<h4>Security and Compliance</h4>
<p>As computer software has become the backbone of modern civilization, organized cyber criminals, state sponsored cyber attackers, and terrorist organizations try to exploit design flaws and weaknesses in the applications in order to generate revenue and carry out criminal activities. The growing number of cyber attacks has become one of the most serious economic and national security threats our nation faces.</p>
<p>Recent news of sophisticated and targeted cyber attacks against such world-class organizations as the International Monetary Fund, Sony, Amazon, Google, and Lockheed illustrate the seriousness of this threat. But while such attacks garner headlines, energy providers operating electric grids, gas pipelines and nuclear power plants have known for years that they are prime targets for advanced persistent threats. If allowed to succeed, these attacks could have a wide impact on the nation’s economy and civil stability.</p>
<p>Over the past decade, a series of events has highlighted the vulnerability of the electric grid and other energy infrastructure to cyber attacks. Extensive blackouts in the northeast U.S. and in parts of Europe in 2003,<sup>2</sup> as well as sophisticated exploits such as Stuxnet,<sup>3</sup> a computer worm that targeted nuclear plant operators last summer, are just the tip of the iceberg. A recent survey conducted by McAfee and the Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies,<sup>4</sup> reveals that 80 percent of critical infrastructure providers have faced threats ranging from denial-of-service attacks to extortion, and advanced persistent attacks.</p>
<p>While most attention is usually focused on threats to the electric grid, in reality there’s little difference in vulnerabilities between electric grids and other energy infrastructure, such as natural gas pipelines, petroleum pipelines and district heating, as well as other utilities such as drinking water and sanitation systems.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the energy industry uses process control systems that lack a proficient, organization-wide incident-reporting mechanism, which makes them less reactive to any advanced persistent threat. The awareness and importance of finding ways to better protect our nation’s critical infrastructure changed overnight when the towers of the World Trade Center fell nearly 10 years ago.</p>
<p>Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the energy industry has taken special measures to ensure the reliability of the North American bulk power systems—especially as it relates to emerging threats of cyber attacks. For instance, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), developed standards for NERC members’ critical infrastructure protection (CIP). These standards have been prepared to ensure the reliability of the bulk electric system in North America and include stipulations about cyber security.</p>
<p>In addition, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued security rules that added cyber attacks to the adversary threat types nuclear plants must be able to defend against. According to the NRC’s “Protection of Digital Computer and Communications Systems and Networks” (10 CFR 73.54), nuclear power plant licensees are nowadays mandated to submit a cyber security plan and remediation strategy. The U.S. nuclear industry’s trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), went even further by inviting more than 20 cyber security experts from the nuclear industry to build NEI 08-09, “Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors.” NEI 08-09 looks very similar to the NRC guidelines and focuses on ensuring that approximately 650 controls derived from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—NIST 800-53—are used to verify the cyber security of critical digital assets in commercial nuclear plants.</p>
<p>Obviously, the energy industry has taken proactive steps to secure critical infrastructure against threats such as cyber attacks. However, when it comes to the implementation of cyber security plans, the industry is still facing a dilemma as utilities’ current measures are unable to keep up with the evolving exploits, including perimeter intrusion detection, signature-based malware, and anti-virus solutions. Often, these security tools operate in a silo-based approach and aren’t integrated and interconnected to achieve a closed-loop process and continuous monitoring. Another shortcoming lies in the fact that a majority of security programs lack a risk-based approach, whereby vulnerabilities and associated remediation actions are based on the risk to the organization and its infrastructure.</p>
<h4>Attackers and Tactics</h4>
<p>Undoubtedly of utmost concern in the energy industry is the vulnerability of industrial control systems, specifically supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems that are used to control geographically dispersed assets from a central command center. Historically, SCADA systems were isolated and used to control processes for a single site. However, advances in computer technology as well as the liberalization of the energy industry have led to an interconnected environment. As a result, SCADA systems become inherently vulnerable to cyber attacks, such as viruses, worms, trojans, and malware. However, without connectivity to the outside world, energy companies wouldn’t be able to share their production and reserve capacity with other providers.</p>
<p>When it comes to threats against SCADA systems, energy industry organizations can distinguish between threats posed by unauthorized access to the software system—whether driven by human interference or via virus infections that impact the performance of the software—and packet access to network segments that host SCADA systems. The latter threat raises the risk of intruders taking control of SCADA systems by sending access packets to the device.</p>
<p>Any of the outlined threats can essentially shut down the SCADA system, resulting in a direct or indirect threat for public health and safety.</p>
<p>When it comes to the motives that drive cyber attacks, it’s important to understand the different types of hackers.</p>
<p>Leisure hackers want to prove to the world their ability to break into a protected network or server, and it doesn’t matter if the network is operated by an industrial, commercial, or government organization. It’s more about the bragging rights rather than exploiting the victims for material gain. This group represents by far the least serious threat to the energy infrastructure.</p>
<p>Next up the ladder are those individuals that want to bring about environmental or social change and therefore target specific networks in order to advance their particular agenda. For instance, anti-nuclear activists could attempt to disrupt a nuclear power plant operation to create fear among the citizens and leverage the unfavourable media coverage for their own purposes. With the radicalization of activist movements in recent years, this group of hackers represents a serious threat to the energy infrastructure.</p>
<p>The next level of hackers, organized cyber criminals, always follow the money-trail, they have focused their attention on cyberspace as it allows them to cash in with a limited risk of getting caught. And while their organized crime leans towards exploiting vulnerabilities that are associated with personal identifiable information—which then can be used for fraudulent activities—they could target the energy industry to either manipulate the stock market or ask for ransom in exchange of not harming critical infrastructures. Targets of such extortion have tended to keep the incidents quiet, to avoid encouraging copycats.</p>
<p>Terrorist networks pose an even greater threat. The killing of al-Qaeda leader and founder Osama bin Laden and subsequent release of intelligence data illustrated how sophisticated terrorist networks are, and that cyber warfare is not unknown to them. Considering the fatal consequences a rapid shutdown of a nuclear plant could have for a whole region, such infrastructure presents a desirable target for terrorist networks.</p>
<p>Finally, state sponsored attackers have a variety of possible motivations—commercial, military, tactical, and strategic. Internet security experts, Western governments, and corporate America believe that the majority of cyber attacks originate from state actors, and in particular, countries such as China and North Korea. In February 2011, several multinational energy firms were targeted in an attack called “Night Dragon.”<sup>5</sup> The hack was traced back to China via a server leasing company in Shandong Province that hosted the malware and to a Beijing IP address. Further, according to U.S. diplomatic cable releases by Wikileaks,<sup>6</sup> U.S. officials believe that attacks on Google were devised by two members of China’s ruling body. It is believed that thousands of hackers have been recruited to form a botnet army in China. In May 2011,<sup>7</sup> a spokesperson for the Chinese Defense Ministry admitted that it has an elite unit of cyber warriors in its army, which is tasked to safeguard the Internet security of armed forces. China denied allegations that it uses cyber warfare as an offensive tool. Considering the funds available to many military powers as well as governments in general, state-sponsored cyber warfare represents a significant threat.</p>
<p>For instance, by disrupting the energy infrastructure of a country, the attacker could certainly create chaos, forcing the target nation to divert attention and manpower to dealing with internal issues rather than an external conflict.</p>
<p>Another factor that can’t be underestimated in the context of cyber security risk to energy infrastructure comes from the human element. Employees sometimes unknowingly fall prey to phishing attacks. And frequently users will insert USB thumb drives of questionable origin into network computers—not realizing that they could have been pre-loaded with malware. Hackers and malware build upon such weaknesses.</p>
<h4>Improving Cyber Security</h4>
<p>The reliable function of SCADA systems in the energy industry’s infrastructure may be crucial to public health and safety. As such, attacks on these systems may directly or indirectly threaten public health and safety.</p>
<p>In addition to collaborating with the Department of Homeland Security, FERC, NERC, and NEI, commercial energy providers should consider overhauling their approach to information security risk management to counter cyber attacks and prevent data loss, unauthorized disclosure, and data destruction. Following the recommendation of the DOE Offices of Energy Assurance and Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance, and the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, the following rudimentary actions should be taken to improve the cyber security of SCADA networks:<sup>8 </sup></p>
<p>First, companies should manage and perform risk assessments to understand which systems have sensitive data and, therefore, have the highest criticality. In this context it’s especially important to identify all connections to SCADA networks. Based on the results of the risk assessments, energy infrastructure providers should rationalize the locations where sensitive data is stored to only the most secure systems that are protected against direct Internet traffic—disconnecting unnecessary connections to the SCADA network.</p>
<p>In a second phase, operators should evaluate and strengthen the security of any remaining connections. This includes, but isn’t limited to hardening networks by removing or disabling unnecessary services. At the same time, it’s important to track risks on these critical systems from a top-down perspective to understand the key threats that an energy company faces and ensure controls are in place to counter these threats.</p>
<p>Other steps to consider are dropping the use of proprietary protocols to protect infrastructure systems, implementing the security features provided by the device and system vendors, and establishing strong controls over any medium used as a back door into the SCADA network.</p>
<p>From a strategic perspective, energy industry players should consider managing risk from a bottom-up perspective by consolidating and correlating data from scanners, vulnerability feeds, patch management systems, and configuration management systems to get a holistic view of vulnerabilities affecting the most business-critical assets.</p>
<p>An advanced information security risk management program begins by implementing internal and external intrusion detection systems and establishing 24-hour-a-day incident monitoring. Furthermore, technical audits of SCADA devices and networks, and any other connected networks, are performed to identify security concerns. This includes physical security surveys and assessments of all remote sites connected to the SCADA network to evaluate their security.</p>
<p>On a systems level, it’s essential to create and track tickets to put in place controls and remediation to address threats and vulnerabilities in a timely fashion. Continuously reporting on risks, vulnerabilities, and effectiveness of remediation efforts enables an energy infrastructure provider to manage emergency response processes and procedures. Following this approach enables an organization to minimize the damage from a cyber attack.</p>
<p>From a policy and governance perspective, energy infrastructure providers should clearly define cyber security roles, responsibilities, and authorities for managers, system administrators, and users. At the same time, they should document their organization’s network architecture and identify systems that serve critical functions or contain sensitive information that require additional levels of protection.</p>
<p>Borrowing from McAfee’s current slogan, “safe never sleeps,” organizations should conduct frequent self-assessments to test their information security risk management program. At the same time, it’s essential to run training programs for employees and contractors to prevent unintended disclosure of sensitive information.</p>
<p>Implementing an ISRM program that integrates and interconnects components for managing security events, assets, threats, vulnerabilities and incident response, as well as software configuration and patches, will allow organizations to increase resiliency, improve response time, and enhance overall system robustness. At the same time they can reduce risk through the ability to make threats and vulnerabilities visible and actionable—enabling utilities to prioritize and address high risk security vulnerabilities prior to them being exploited.</p>
<p>Streamlining processes by leveraging automation and reducing redundant, manual efforts helps to reduce cost too—offsetting the initial expenses of implementing an advanced information security risk management program.</p>
<h4>Collaborative Security</h4>
<p>ISRM can help prevent and minimize the consequences of cyber attacks on our nation’s critical infrastructure. But will it guarantee an organization’s safety? As all security professionals are painfully aware, cyber criminals are outpacing many target organizations and security vendors when it comes to finding new ways to attack their victims. Thus, it seems that future attacks will be more severe, more complex, and more difficult to anticipate, plan for, and detect.</p>
<p>Beyond facing direct cyber attacks, which are targeting critical infrastructure systems, more attacks might include information warfare, using social media outlets as a new methodology. A good example of this new threat occurred in Russia, where hackers targeted a nuclear power plant near St. Petersburg in May 2008.<sup>9</sup> The cyber attack led to the shutdown of the plant’s website, which would have gone unnoticed by the public if not for the fact that the attackers circulated rumors of radioactive leaks via the Internet. The incident didn’t affect the plant operation, but caused panic among citizens living close to the facility.</p>
<p>Another threat scenario lies in the manipulation of energy markets by spreading rumors about attacks on major energy infrastructure facilities (<i>e.g.</i>, gas or oil pipelines), which could lead to unexpected shortages in power or gas and at least for a short time cause disruptions or blackouts.</p>
<p>Fortunately, the public, lawmakers, and regulators in Washington D.C. are becoming increasingly well informed about to threats and vulnerabilities of the nation’s critical infrastructure. A determined and collaborative effort driven by regulators, security vendors, industry leaders and politicians is required to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure against disruptions and attacks. While the most recent government initiatives are a step in the right direction, legislation has proven to be too slow to respond to rapidly evolving threats.</p>
<p>Thus, it lies in the hands of energy companies to raise awareness of the risk of cyber attacks and take appropriate action.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Endnotes:</h4>
<p>1. “<a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/apr/19/lab-halts-web-access-after-cyber-attack" target="_blank">Lab halts Web access after cyber attack</a>,” <a href="http://www.knoxnews.com" target="_blank">www.knoxnews.com</a>, April 19, 2011.</p>
<p>2. “<a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/china-s-cyber-militia-20080531" target="_blank">China’s Cyber-Militia</a>,” <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com" target="_blank">www.nationaljournal.com</a>, Jan. 31, 2011.</p>
<p>3. “<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9185919/Is_Stuxnet_the_best_malware_ever_" target="_blank">Is Stuxnet the ‘best’ malware ever?</a>” <a href="http://www.computerworld.com" target="_blank">www.computerworld.com</a>, Sept. 16, 2010.</p>
<p>4. “In the Dark: Crucial Industries Confront Cyberattacks,” McAfee and Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies, November 2010.</p>
<p>5. “‘<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/219251/night_dragon_attacks_from_china_strike_energy_companies.html" target="_top">Night Dragon’ Attacks from China Strike Energy Companies</a>,” <a href="http://www.pcworld.com" target="_blank">www.pcworld.com</a>, Feb. 10, 2011.</p>
<p>6. “<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373562,00.asp" target="_blank">Wikileaks: Chinese Govt Helped Coordinate Google Attack</a>,” <a href="http://www.pcmag.com" target="_blank">www.pcmag.com</a>, Nov. 29, 2010.</p>
<p>7. “<a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/china-admits-cyber-warfare-unit" target="_blank">China admits cyber warfare unit</a>,” <a href="http://www.Channel4News.com" target="_blank">www.Channel4News.com</a>, May 26, 2011.</p>
<p>8. “21 Steps to Improve Cyber Security of SCADA Networks,” Office of Energy Assurance, Office of Independent Oversight And Performance Assurance, U.S. Department of Energy.</p>
<p>9. “Project Grey Goose Report on Critical Infrastructure: Attacks, Actors, and Emerging Threats,” <i>Greylogic</i>, Jan. 21, 2010.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/security-reliability-cip">Security, Reliability &amp; CIP</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1"><a href="/article-categories/smart-grid">Smart Grid</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1107/images/1107-FEA2.jpg" width="1500" height="1083" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/amazon">Amazon</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/china">China</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/cip">CIP</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/communication">Communication</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/cyber-security-plan-nuclear-power-reactors">Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/department-energy">Department of Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/department-homeland-security">Department of Homeland Security</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/doe">DOE</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/federal-energy-regulatory-commission">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/federal-energy-regulatory-commission-ferc">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ferc">FERC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/google">Google</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/infrastructure">Infrastructure</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/integration">Integration</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/isrm">ISRM</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/it">IT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/lockheed">Lockheed</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/national-institute-standards-and-technology">National Institute of Standards and Technology</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei-08-09">NEI 08-09</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nerc">NERC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/network">Network</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/night-dragon">Night Dragon</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nist">NIST</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nist-800-53">NIST 800-53</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/north-american-electric-reliability-corp-0">North American Electric Reliability Corp.</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrc">NRC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-regulatory-commission">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/oak-ridge-national-laboratory">Oak Ridge National Laboratory</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/protection-digital-computer-and-communications-systems-and-networks">Protection of Digital Computer and Communications Systems and Networks</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/reliability">Reliability</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/scada">SCADA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/security">Security</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/stuxnet">Stuxnet</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/technology">Technology</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/us-department-energy">U.S. Department of Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/us-nuclear-regulatory-commission">U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a> </div>
</div>
Fri, 01 Jul 2011 04:00:00 +0000puradmin13540 at https://www.fortnightly.comSpent-Fuel Fedcorphttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2011/05/spent-fuel-fedcorp
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The Blue Ribbon Commission’s best answer for the nuclear waste dilemma.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>John A. Bewick</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>John A. Bewick</b> is <i>Fortnightly’s</i> contributing editor and formerly was secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He holds advanced degrees in nuclear science and business management.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - May 2011</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>For America’s nuclear power operators, the future looks more uncertain than it has for almost 30 years.</p>
<p>Among all the complex political, financial and technical issues affecting the country’s nuclear future, the spent-fuel dilemma has proved to be one of the most difficult. However, just as the Department of Energy’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) prepares to issue its recommendations for a new approach to spent-fuel management, the Fukushima disaster has focused tremendous public attention on nuclear risks—adding pressure to a problem that already was nearing critical mass.</p>
<p>With the insistent media focus on details of the Fukushima-Daiichi failure, American citizens have learned that spent nuclear fuel pools aren’t protected by containment, and that many such pools have exceeded their designed capacity. This awareness has increased fear of radiation exposure, and fueled growing opposition to nuclear power. Recent polls show support for nuclear power has diminished drastically since before the Fukushima disaster. <i>(See “Nuclear Power in US: public support plummets in wake of Fukushima crisis,” Christian Science Monitor, March 22, 2010)</i>.</p>
<p>This change in support arrives just one year after President Barack Obama abruptly canceled the Yucca Mountain project, leaving DOE without a credible long-term plan for the permanent disposal of U.S. spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982. Lawsuits filed by nuclear operators claim damages now reaching $1.8 billion, with the federal government’s legal exposure to such litigation projected to balloon to more than $13 billion over the next decade. According to Kim Cawley with the Congressional Budget Office, each year of delay adds between $300 and $400 million in liabilities to the budget deficit, at a time when Congress is paying intense attention to deficits.</p>
<p>In this context, public trust and confidence in nuclear power seems unlikely to be restored unless, among other things, the federal government defines a credible path forward for developing a repository for spent nuclear fuel. Tasked with finding this path forward, the BRC has been engaged in hearings and technical investigations for more than a year, with draft recommendations expected to be released this summer. Sources tell <i>Fortnightly</i> the BRC likely will advise the federal government to create a new entity to manage disposal of spent nuclear fuel—probably a federal corporation (fedcorp) modeled on TVA.</p>
<p>A spent-fuel fedcorp could remove the constraints of the annual congressional budget cycle, allowing predictable annual financial support and improving the odds that a safe and effective future can be crafted for long-term management of depleted fuel rods and other radioactive materials. Similar approaches in Sweden and Finland have succeeded in moving their spent-fuel storage projects toward construction. And such a fedcorp—the Nuclear Fuels Management Corp.—was proposed in Congress by Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio, now retired), first in 2008 ((S.3661), <i>The United States Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act of 2008</i>), and most recently last year (S.3322), with a companion bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who now chairs the House Energy &amp; Commerce Committee.</p>
<p>Although the Fukushima crisis might have delayed or even ended the nuclear renaissance, it also has intensified the urgency of fuel-cycle issues. “Spent fuel is one issue that has been on the table in this country for a long time,” Voinovich told <i>Fortnightly</i>. “It has ping-ponged back and forth, and it’s now time to deal with it forthrightly.”</p>
<h4>Why Fedcorp?</h4>
<p>Federal agency management of such a large and complex project through the Department of Energy has failed to produce a spent-fuel storage solution, although the last 20 years have seen many attempts. Numerous factors have conspired to prevent a successful outcome.</p>
<p>First, annual appropriations by Congress fail to insure a consistent level of funding, as priorities within Congress change over time. Plus, executive-branch priorities also change over time; the spent-fuel project has rarely been considered a major federal priority in the last 20 years. It has never been a primary focus of DOE, whose mission is large and complex with multiple priorities.</p>
<p>Moreover, the skill sets at government agencies are different from those in business. As such, DOE’s people arguably lack the expertise, experience and background needed to manage and complete large construction projects.</p>
<p>Also, the siting process adopted by Congress in 1987 proved to be flawed when Congress chose the Yucca Mountain site without adequate technical knowledge of the specifications for such a site or of the geological characteristics of the site. Additionally, by dictating the site without sufficient involvement of either the local or state communities affected, the government generated instant opposition to the project—and that opposition has been unremitting. The ultimate consequence of this choice was the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project. But more broadly, a top-down federal siting process that discounts local control or input has added to general public resistance to such facilities, and makes it unlikely that other locations will welcome what’s perceived as a national hazardous-waste dump.</p>
<p>Further, designing and constructing the facility turned out to be more technically complex than anticipated, perhaps because there was an assumption it would be easy compared with designing, building and operating a nuclear power plant. But whatever the reason, unexpected technical challenges increased development costs, and pushed Yucca Mountain’s schedule beyond a horizon that could receive consistent support by a federal government that tends to change hands approximately every four years.</p>
<p>Finally, DOE’s failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel as required by the NWPA has added to public distrust of nuclear power, since the public sees no credible solution for long-term disposal of spent fuel in a geologically safe environment.</p>
<p>A spent-fuel fedcorp could bring a fresh approach to decision making, and it would benefit from a more stable, long-term funding framework. Additionally, the idea of a fedcorp, at least in principle, enjoys strong support from the industry and its lawmakers. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), representing the utilities that own nuclear power plants, favors the fedcorp model <i>(See “Rethinking Spent Fuel,” February 2011)</i>. Some prominent state regulators are on the record supporting a fedcorp, including Michigan Public Service Commissioner Greg White; and of course the current chairman of the House Energy Committee co-sponsored the Voinovich bill.</p>
<p>However, by itself, a federal corporation structure shouldn’t be considered any guarantee of success, as the failures and foibles of some federal entities have illustrated. The U.S. SynFuels Corp. of the early 1980s provides an instructive example. The project to produce synthetic fuels, primarily from coal, lost its mission when its primary driving force vanished—<i>i.e.</i>, the energy crisis ended, and petroleum prices dropped below the cost of the new fuels to be produced. And another example, Amtrak, continually suffers from the uncertainties of annual congressional appropriations.</p>
<p>There are, however, successful examples of corporations created as public entities with policy direction from Congress, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) or more recently the U.S. Enrichment Corp. (USEC)—which was formed by the federal government in the early 1990s, and privatized in 1998.</p>
<p>Both successful and unsuccessful examples provide useful lessons. Several key steps stand out as being critically important in the effort to create a successful fedcorp to manage spent nuclear fuel.</p>
<h4>Step 1: Policy Mandate</h4>
<p>A central question for any new government corporation involves resolving how policy is set, and what functions and responsibilities accrue to the entity. In short, would the fedcorp be expected to craft policy on managing spent fuel, or would it receive such policy from the government?</p>
<p>Jack Bailey, TVA’s director of nuclear operations, argues that Congress and the administration—and not the board of a nuclear fedcorp—must bear the responsibility to establish America’s spent-fuel policy.</p>
<p>“We wouldn’t advocate that this fedcorp in any way establish policy,” Bailey says. “They are merely a tool to implement policy. That direction comes from the administration or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, or some other legislative vehicle to establish overall policy.”</p>
<p>Bailey does, however, specify functions to be carried out by the fedcorp. “The [fedcorp’s] board—and the management that it would hire—need the flexibility to implement policy as best they see fit, and to manage the money that’s put into the fund in a way that’s most efficient toward achieving the results of the corporation.”</p>
<p>In other words, the fedcorp’s mandate should be firmly established—but it should also give the fedcorp the flexibility it needs to get the job done right.</p>
<h4>Step 2: An Independent Board</h4>
<p>Like any successful corporation, a nuclear waste fedcorp would need strong governance and management expertise. “The board structure needs to include people who understand business,” Bailey says. “It can’t all be political appointees, for example, who have really no knowledge or interest in the business.”</p>
<p>Additionally the fedcorp board should include representation from major stakeholder groups, who will ensure the corporation is directed and managed in an independent way. According to Bailey, TVA has been most successful “when the board has had the ability to act on behalf of its mission without having to worry about a lot of extraneous things, whether they be political or other issues.”</p>
<p>Of course, nuclear waste policy is an intensely political subject, and the fedcorp would need people capable of managing the public-interest aspects of the corporation’s mission.</p>
<p>Some witnesses speaking before the BRC advocated having representatives of the public on the fedcorp board. Others suggest this might be unnecessary, and that simply ensuring proper regulatory oversight by the NRC and EPA would satisfy the need to ensure fair and impartial review of the corporation’s actions. “Remember, any decision [the board members] make is going to be under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires them to engage the public and the environmental groups that might be concerned,” Bailey says. “So it’s going to be a very public process.”</p>
<p>Also, last year’s Voinovich bill specified that the National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) would contribute two members to the proposed board of directors. This provision was intended to ensure the interests of customers and state governments are represented in the fedcorp’s decisions.</p>
<h4>Step 3: Independent Funding</h4>
<p>Assuring the continuity of funding from year to year is the most compelling reason to create a new entity that has direct access to the annual revenues from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Without such funding, consistent progress on construction of a repository can’t move forward at a reliable pace. It’s important for public reassurance and to support the huge, long-term financial commitments involved in constructing a spent-fuel repository—and not let the constantly shifting political winds in Washington affect those commitments.</p>
<p>The Nuclear Waste Fund has been the designated repository for ratepayer and utility fees since 1982, with accrued funds (allocated within the federal budget) of about $25 billion, and annual payments of about $750 million. To date, about $10 billion has been spent toward the construction of a permanent repository, mostly on Yucca Mountain.</p>
<p>Both the corpus of the Nuclear Waste Fund and the ongoing ratepayer payments logically might become the principal financial assets of a nuclear waste fedcorp. But transferring either accrued funds or annual contributions to a new fedcorp entity isn’t a trivial matter. For one thing, the Nuclear Waste Fund is earmarked for a permanent repository—as opposed to other options, such as interim storage or on-site casks, for example. Allowing the fedcorp to pursue the most pragmatic approach might require some legislative changes in the fund’s charter.</p>
<p>But perhaps more importantly, the fund presents a difficult budgeting matter for Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The issue has caused difficulties for previous efforts at reforming the way the federal government manages the Nuclear Waste Fund. In April 2006, DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman proposed an ambitious plan for managing nuclear spent-fuel and high-level waste, and that plan ran aground reportedly in part because OMB objected to transferring dollars from the Nuclear Waste Fund out of the federal balance sheet. “Funding reform is necessary to correct a technical budgetary problem that has acted as a disincentive to adequate funding,” Bodman stated.</p>
<p>The issue hasn’t improved since 2006. In testimony before the BRC in February, Mike Telson, DOE’s former chief financial officer, said his budget committee and the OMB had engaged in “Talmudic” discussions of this issue—implying such discussions were complex and could’ve gone on forever. Likewise Joe Hezir, a senior official at OMB for decades, explained that budgeting rules have become more restrictive and adverse in the context of transferring funds to a fedcorp. He said:</p>
<p>Such budget conflicts, however, aren’t necessarily deal killers for funding a spent-fuel fedcorp. Bailey of TVA, for example, argues that the $25 billion corpus of the Nuclear Waste Fund isn’t immediately needed to initiate a fedcorp. Annual ratepayer fees would be adequate to get the fedcorp started, and the government could transfer the corpus of the fund to the fedcorp books later—or even leave the fund where it is, and use that fund <i>in situ</i> as an asset to secure bonds issued for financing the fedcorp’s work.</p>
<h4>Step 4: Defined Liabilities</h4>
<p>The major liability that arises in creating a fedcorp involves the federal government’s failure to meet its obligations under the NWPA to assume responsibility for managing spent fuel beginning in 1998. Several utilities and state regulatory agencies have successfully sued the government for compensation arising from its violation and their additional costs for onsite spent-fuel storage. Exposure to this liability would prove problematic for a spent-fuel fedcorp.</p>
<p>In his BRC testimony, Phil Sewell, senior vice president of USEC, reinforced the need to be precise in identifying liabilities and assets as a key component of a making a new fedcorp successful. Further, Bailey of TVA says that no matter where the responsibility lands, paying the federal government’s damages from the waste fund would be indefensible from a legal and policy standpoint. “Essentially [it would be] asking the utilities to pay for their own lawsuit victory,” he says. “Because the money they’re taking is the money we’re paying in. That makes no sense at all.”</p>
<p>And indeed, a federal court in 2002 ruled that settlements from these suits must come out of the Department of Treasury judgment fund, rather than from the Nuclear Waste Fund.</p>
<p>But a fedcorp could also find itself holding the bag for other federal liabilities. For example, DOE has spent more than $7 billion on Yucca Mountain, and that work carries certain liabilities and responsibilities. Arguably they rest with DOE, and not a new entity without any involvement at Yucca Mountain.</p>
<p>If a fedcorp is created, however, then at some point in the future it will assume liability under the NWPA for the federal obligation to take spent nuclear fuel. So in defining fedcorp’s liabilities, policy makers will need to establish a reasonable timeline during which NWPA liabilities transfer to the fedcorp.</p>
<h4>Step 5: Collaborative Approach</h4>
<p>The existing siting process, established by Congress in 1987, hasn’t worked. Instead, it has generated strong opposition from the State of Nevada, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Also, problems that were unknown when the Yucca Mountain site was selected—including water intrusion and cracks in the mountain—have raised issues about its appropriateness as a repository that must, in effect, last forever.</p>
<p>The BRC held hearings at locations that illustrate both success and failure at siting similar facilities. Their investigations took the BRC to Europe and across the United States, and included testimony from many experts on siting issues—as well as from those who express grave concerns and fears about such siting. Almost universally, public officials—from mayors to governors to state legislators—demand a say in approving such sites. Some demand a binding veto. Others ask for a permitting role. Some want the Congress to dictate a site, while others urge a competition from local communities and states for a site with huge financial bonuses—as was the case in Sweden and Finland, where there has been permanent repository siting success <i>(see “<a href="http://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2010/11/life-after-yucca">Life After Yucca</a>,” November 2010)</i>.</p>
<p>In any case, a spent-fuel fedcorp seems likely to succeed only if it can develop a new, collaborative approach to siting nuclear waste facilities. Also, to the degree the fedcorp considers interim storage options, it would need some way to establish credibility that “interim” isn’t a euphemism for “permanent” <i>(see “Tough Questions for Fedcorp”)</i>.</p>
<p>In the <i>Plan D for Spent Nuclear Fuel</i> report—produced by a group of academics, led by Prof. Clifford Singer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign—a key recommendation is that “every shipment of spent nuclear fuel material should be accompanied by a payment into a Permanent Fund, to be held by the recipient state as long as that material stays in the state… States would receive interest earnings on the Permanent Fund balance beyond any needed to maintain the minimum balance.”</p>
<p>The <i>Plan D</i> report also argues against a single long-term storage site—<i>e.g.</i>, the so-called “monopoly” approach that failed at Yucca Mountain. “A monopoly situation would generate tension within the state and with the federal government over whether the state had obtained adequate compensation,” Prof. Singer wrote. “This could lead to delays or even failure of the whole project again.” He suggested that a more successful process might involve about six finalist states, competing for two or preferably three repository site licenses—with an equal number of spent-fuel aging facilities to be licensed at repository sites.</p>
<h4>Clean Slate</h4>
<p>If the BRC recommends the federal government create a fedcorp to take over the process of siting a repository for spent nuclear fuel, it could establish a clean slate for resolving America’s nuclear waste dilemma. Properly structured, a fedcorp would allow a more rational and sustainable approach to the problem.</p>
<p>However, in order for it to succeed, the mission of such a fedcorp must be clearly defined, its powers carefully delineated, and its financing constructed so as to avoid the delays that have hampered DOE efforts to date.</p>
<p>A spent-fuel fedcorp would face a panoply of complexities in management, funding, legislative authority and structure, as well as legal and financial liabilities—and that’s before it even considers the technical and operational issues of siting, building and running nuclear waste facilities. This combination of complexities and difficulties has stymied progress by the DOE, but a dedicated fedcorp that’s more flexible and sustainably financed might be better positioned to tackle this generational challenge.</p>
<p>And now might be precisely the right time for the fedcorp idea.</p>
<p>A convergence of failures—<i>i.e.</i>, the accident at Fukushima, the cancellation of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent fuel, and the growing budget impact of litigation settlements related to DOE’s non-performance on its NWPA obligations—already represents a call for action on the safe storage of spent fuel. If proponents of a fedcorp approach are correct, a forthcoming BRC recommendation—and a federal decision to act upon it—could begin the process of turning these failures into a new beginning for America’s policy on nuclear spent fuel.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field-collection-container clearfix"><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar field-type-field-collection field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="field-collection-view clearfix view-mode-full"><div class="entity entity-field-collection-item field-collection-item-field-sidebar clearfix">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">&lt;b&gt;Fedcorp: Key Elements &lt;/b&gt;</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-body field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Body:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><!--smart_paging_autop_filter--><!--smart_paging_filter--><p>When Philip G. Sewell, senior vice president of U.S. Enrichment Corp., testified before the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in February 2011, he addressed what he considered to be the key elements for the establishment and operation of a successful government corporation. They included legislation, corporation assets, existing contracts, the role of the U.S. Treasury, delineation of liabilities, a regulatory oversight path, strong management, and a viable cost structure. Sewell advised:</p><p>• The enacting legislation must be thorough enough to provide the corporation with legal standing to perform its business, establish a strong and independent corporate governance structure, and provide it with means (financial, personnel, regulatory) to be an effective business.</p><p>• The transfer of assets and a clear definition of the value of those assets is necessary to support the organization’s future viability.</p><p>• The government must transfer existing contracts (<i>i.e.</i>, customer, power, services) on favorable enough terms to support business operations.</p><p>• The role of the U.S. Treasury in the management of the corporation’s assets, cash and returns to the government must be defined.</p><p>• There must be a clear delineation of liabilities between the government and the new corporation.</p><p>• A clear regulatory oversight path for immediate term and long-term management of spent nuclear fuel must be established.</p><p>• The new entity needs a strong mix of experienced managers from private and government sectors.</p><p>• There must be a viable cost structure that will support its operations.–JB</p><p> </p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div><div class="field-item odd"><div class="field-collection-view clearfix view-mode-full field-collection-view-final"><div class="entity entity-field-collection-item field-collection-item-field-sidebar clearfix">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">&lt;b&gt;Tough Questions for Fedcorp &lt;/b&gt;</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-body field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Body:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><!--smart_paging_autop_filter--><!--smart_paging_filter--><p>Policy makers considering possible approaches to creating a spent-fuel fedcorp face a critical question, whose answer could spark a potential firestorm of controversy. Specifically, would the fedcorp be authorized to consider all the possible ways to deal with spent fuel, or would its mandate allow only a narrow set of acceptable solutions?</p><p>If the fedcorp gets a broad mandate, then it will have to consider two fundamental questions. First, should we recycle our spent nuclear fuel, the way they do in France and other countries? And second, should storage options include only the possibility of a permanent repository like Yucca Mountain, or should we consider potential interim-storage solutions.</p><p>With regard to the first question, the prospect of recycling or reprocessing spent fuel opens the door to a complex and provocative debate. Specifically, current reprocessing systems are too expensive to be justified on a purely economic basis; in other words, fresh fuel is much cheaper than recycled fuel, even when avoided disposal costs are factored into the price. However, the other side of the argument suggests that current economics might not prevail. Following this rationale, recycling should be part of a long-term plan for spent-fuel management, if only because nuclear fuel represents a finite resource. At the very least, any approach to managing spent fuel shouldn’t foreclose the future possibility of reclaiming the large remaining energy value in stored nuclear waste.</p><p>George Dials, executive vice president of B&amp;W Technical Services Group and former director of the DOE Carlsbad Field Office, told the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC), “I truly believe we are going to need all the energy in the used nuclear fuel that we have in the long-term future for this country.” In his written testimony, Dials stated that a once-through disposal solution “is counter to establishing a complete, closed nuclear fuel cycle… [W]e must establish a commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing/recycling enterprise to sustain our nuclear power capabilities.”</p><p>In addition to hearing such testimony, the BRC visited nuclear power plant facilities in France, and learned about Areva reprocessing technology and facilities in that country. If those actions provide any clue, it’s possible the BRC’s recommendations will at least leave open the door to reprocessing as a solution for future consideration.</p><p>However, economic viability isn’t the only issue affecting the recycling option. The other major issue is proliferation risk. To the degree reprocessing yields plutonium (Pu), it triggers a complex set of policy questions—not only domestic policy, but also U.S. obligations under international non-proliferation treaties dating back to 1969.</p><p>The Blue Ribbon Commission discussed reprocessing spent fuel and proliferation concerns at a hearing in October 2010. Although the hearing spawned many disagreements, one clear fact emerged: If and when a fedcorp addresses the question of whether to pursue reprocessing on any level, then it also will face the question of how to deal with proliferation concerns. As James M. Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told the BRC, “This fuel cycle choice would send the message that reprocessing was an essential part of a modern nuclear energy program and enhance the risk that other states would develop PUREX”—<i>i.e.</i>, technologies that produce Pu as a by-product.</p><h4>Interim vs. Permanent</h4><p>In principle and in statute, U.S. policy on spent-fuel management requires the federal government to assume possession of commercial nuclear waste and manage it in a permanent repository. In practice, however, U.S. nuclear operators are storing almost all of their spent fuel onsite—much of it in pools of water, and some in dry casks. Although water pools are supposed to provide only temporary quarters to allow fuel rods to cool down, dry casks are considered an interim solution, which allows nuclear generation to continue while a permanent repository is developed.</p><p>Now, a key question affecting a nuclear waste fedcorp will be whether it can only build permanent storage, or whether one or more centralized interim storage facilities are allowable. Interim storage offers some important advantages—namely an interim facility can be built much more quickly than a permanent repository, and it would provide breathing room for policy makers to define workable long-term solutions—<i>i.e.</i>, either spent-fuel reprocessing, permanent geologic sequestration, or both.</p><p>On the other hand, interim storage would add substantial costs and potentially contentious transportation requirements to the overall challenge of managing spent fuel. It also creates the perception—and arguably the reality—that interim sites would become <i>de-facto </i>permanent sites, posing long-term security and public health concerns. Rather than solving the problem, interim storage might in effect be nothing more than a costly exercise in reshuffling.</p><p>The BRC considered these issues in its deliberations before the Fukushima crisis happened. Since then, risks involving onsite storage of spent fuel have been exposed to the glare of public attention—adding pressure to the BRC’s mission and perhaps changing its perspective on how to prioritize various options.</p><p>In short, the Fukushima disaster has raised a sense of urgency about resolving spent-fuel issues, and potentially driving the BRC—and any prospective nuclear waste fedcorp—toward solutions that reduce the risk of radioactive releases sooner rather than later.–JB and MTB</p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear-fuel-cycle">Nuclear Fuel Cycle</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1"><a href="/article-categories/environmental">Environmental</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2"><a href="/article-categories/energy-policy-legislation">Energy Policy &amp; Legislation</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1105/images/1105-FEA1.jpg" width="720" height="498" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/clifford-singer">Clifford Singer</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/department-energy">Department of Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/doe">DOE</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/doe-secretary-samuel-bodman">DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/fred-upton">Fred Upton</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/fukushima">Fukushima</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/fukushima-disaster">Fukushima disaster</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/fukushima-daiichi-0">Fukushima-Daiichi</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/funding-reform">Funding reform</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/george-voinovich">George Voinovich</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/greg-white">Greg White</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/harry-reid">Harry Reid</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/jack-bailey">Jack Bailey</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/joe-hezir">Joe Hezir</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/michigan-public-service-commission">Michigan Public Service Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commissioner-greg-white">Commissioner Greg White</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/mike-telson">Mike Telson</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/naruc">NARUC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/national-association-utility-regulatory-commissioners">National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/national-environmental-policy-act">National Environmental Policy Act</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nepa">NEPA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrc">NRC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-fuels-management-corp">Nuclear Fuels Management Corp.</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-waste-fund">Nuclear Waste Fund</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-waste-policy-act">Nuclear Waste Policy Act</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nwpa">NWPA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/phil-sewell">Phil Sewell</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/s3322">S.3322</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/s3661">S.3661</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/senate-majority-leader-harry-reid">Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/storage">storage</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/tennessee-valley-authority-0">Tennessee Valley Authority</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/united-states-nuclear-fuel-management-corporation-establishment-act-2008">The United States Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act of 2008</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/tva">TVA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/us-enrichment-corp">U.S. Enrichment Corp.</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/united-states-nuclear-fuel-management-corporation">United States Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/united-states-nuclear-fuel-management-corporation-establishment-act-2008-0">United States Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act of 2008</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/university-illinois">University of Illinois</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/usec">USEC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/yucca-mountain">Yucca Mountain</a> </div>
</div>
Sun, 01 May 2011 04:00:00 +0000puradmin14108 at https://www.fortnightly.comNuclear YIMBYhttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2010/07/nuclear-yimby
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Local communities welcome new reactor projects.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Ann Stouffer Bisconti</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-category field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Op-Ed</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>Ann S. Bisconti </b>is president of Bisconti Research Inc., and has been researching public opinion on nuclear energy issues for more than 25 years. Email her at <a href="mailto:ann@bisconti.com">ann@bisconti.com</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - July 2010</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1007/images/1007-OPED-fig1.jpg" width="1369" height="595" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1007/images/1007-OPED-fig2.jpg" width="1372" height="538" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1007/images/1007-OPED-fig3.jpg" width="1372" height="720" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Visitors to Waynesboro in northeast Georgia might be surprised at local residents’ opinions about two new nuclear energy plants planned for that site; namely, they’re giving the reactors a warm welcome.</p>
<p>The two new units, at Georgia Power’s Vogtle power plant, became the first new nuclear facilities to receive U.S. government support when the Obama Administration in February awarded $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for the project.What about NIMBY, the theory that no one wants a nuclear power plant or other energy facility in their backyard? Counter to outdated conventional wisdom, most residents in areas that already have experience with nuclear energy facilities are saying, “Yes, in my backyard.”</p>
<p>My firm has surveyed residents living within 10 miles of the 64 nuclear power plant locations in 31 states three times since 2005, most recently in 2009. The surveys of 1,152 adults show deep and wide local support for these plants (<i>see Figure 1</i>). On average across these sites, 84 percent in 2009 said they favor the use of nuclear energy—58 percent strongly. Three-fourths would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest nuclear power plant, including 82 percent of men and 72 percent of women (<i>see Figure 2</i>).</p>
<p>Additionally, while plant neighbors are more favorable to nuclear energy than the public at large, recent polls show record high support among Americans in general. A national poll in March by Bisconti Research with GfK Roper found that 77 percent would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that’s already operating. And 70 percent say U.S. energy companies definitely should build more nuclear power plants. A dozen years ago, just 47 percent of those taking part in a nationwide survey said they favor definitely building new nuclear power plants.</p>
<p><b>Reliability, Clean Air &amp; Clean Jobs </b></p>
<p>Most plant neighbors view the plants as safe and environmentally sound. The 2009 survey found that 91 percent are confident in the company’s ability to operate a nuclear power plant safely, and 86 percent believe the company that operates the nearby nuclear power plant is doing a good job of protecting the environment (<i>see Figure 3</i>).</p>
<p>In what might account for this surprisingly strong support, 80 percent feel informed about the local plant, and large majorities associate nuclear energy with reliability, efficiency, and clean air.</p>
<p>For members of the local public, the plants are a familiar part of the landscape. Many know people who work at the plants, and they use nature areas around them for such recreation as hiking, fishing, boating and picnicking.</p>
<p>Additionally, in today’s harsh economy, the prospect of new jobs and economic development are significant drivers for support of new nuclear energy facilities. Ninety percent of residents near existing nuclear plants support new reactors because they believe the local plants help their local economies. At a time when many industries are contracting, the nuclear energy industry has added 15,000 jobs in the past three years. That number would swell to 89,600 direct and indirect jobs if the 64 GW of new nuclear generating capacity forecasted in the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) PRISM analysis were to be built by 2030.</p>
<p>The new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia will supply electricity to 1.4 million people and will create 3,500 new construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs. Already, 700 workers are excavating and preparing the site for the largest construction project in Georgia’s history. Additional state and local taxes from the new reactors will improve schools, police and fire services, and the local infrastructure. These are among the reasons that residents near these plants favor nuclear energy and the construction of new reactors that will provide reliable and low-carbon electricity.</p>
<p><b>Used Fuel Management </b></p>
<p>Following the federal government’s decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository project in 2009, plant neighbors expressed more clearly than ever that they don’t want spent uranium fuel to stay at the plant sites. Their preference: centralized storage options.</p>
<p>Last year, 56 percent of residents near nuclear plants agreed that used nuclear fuel can be stored safely at the plant site, compared to 71 percent who in 2007 agreed that the fuel could be stored safely at the plant site until it’s moved to a permanent disposal facility. This difference between the two years could reflect a greater confidence in the safety of used nuclear fuel storage at the plant when that storage is temporary.</p>
<p>Two centralized storage options make sense to plant neighbors:</p>
<p>• 85 percent in 2009 thought it’s more appropriate that nuclear waste be stored at one or two volunteer sites, where it can be stored more securely and efficiently; and</p>
<p>• 82 percent in 2009 agreed that the federal government should continue to develop the Yucca Mountain site for a national disposal facility for nuclear waste as long as it meets NRC regulations—up from 78 percent in 2007.</p>
<p>The March nationwide survey for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) demonstrates that the public is more comfortable with off-site than on-site storage of used nuclear fuel rods. While 59 percent agree that used nuclear fuel rods can be stored safely and securely at nuclear energy plants, 81 percent believe that the federal government should store used nuclear fuel rods at a secure storage facility away from the nuclear energy plant sites until a permanent disposal facility is ready.</p>
<p>Knowing that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that used nuclear fuel rods can be stored safely and securely at nuclear energy plants for 100 years increases comfort with on-site storage only slightly.</p>
<p>Nearly eight out of 10 (79 percent) favor recycling used nuclear fuel rods to make more electricity and reduce the amount of waste that must be disposed. Knowing that a panel of independent experts recommended recycling used nuclear fuel rods increases support, but support is already very high without mention of expert backing.</p>
<p><b>Looking at Nuclear Differently </b></p>
<p>There has for decades been a significant perception gap when it comes to nuclear energy: Though a majority of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy, many incorrectly believe most of their neighbors oppose it.</p>
<p>One can’t blame them. When the major news networks covered President Obama’s announcement of the financing support for the Vogtle reactors, ABC News led with a clip from the movie <i>China Syndrome</i> and a reminder of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. These events are more than three decades removed from both today’s safe nuclear power plant operations and significant public and bipartisan policymaker support for nuclear energy.</p>
<p>It’s time to look at nuclear energy differently—just as those who live closest to these facilities have been doing for years.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear">Nuclear</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/op-ed">Op-Ed</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1007/images/1007-OPED.jpg" width="496" height="577" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/bc">BC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/china">China</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research">Electric Power Research</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research-institute">Electric Power Research Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/epri">EPRI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/georgia-power">Georgia Power</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nimby">NIMBY</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrc">NRC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-regulatory-commission">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/president-obama">President Obama</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/reliability">Reliability</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/storage">storage</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/three-mile-island">Three Mile Island</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/us-nuclear-regulatory-commission">U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/yucca-mountain">Yucca Mountain</a> </div>
</div>
Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:00:00 +0000puradmin13609 at https://www.fortnightly.comWater Worrieshttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2008/12/water-worries
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>With new plants pending, cooling requires serious thought.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>William Atkinson</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>William Atkinson</b> is a freelance journalist based in Carterville, Ill.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - December 2008</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Thanks to “Blinky,” the three-eyed fish in <i>The Simpsons,</i> nuclear cooling has gotten a bad rap. And these days, as people begin discussing the pros and cons of the nuclear renaissance more frequently, cooling-water issues are emerging as a significant concern—whether enough of it will be available for cooling, and what the environmental consequences might be if new plants are built.</p>
<p>As the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) notes, “Growing demand for electric power, coupled with growing water demand in agricultural, municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, could strain water supplies in the future. … Pressures and associated operating challenges are expected to grow significantly as utilities seek to permit and build new generation facilities to meet growing electricity demand.”</p>
<p>Another organization watching the issue is the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). In 2007, for example, NEI noted that, because rainfall in some areas of the country was 15 to 20 inches below normal, energy companies took steps to reduce water consumption and otherwise conserve water supplies.</p>
<p>“Water is a serious issue,” cautions Robert Goldstein, a senior scientist with EPRI. “Every region of the country is vulnerable to shortages. As such, any sector of the economy that uses water is vulnerable to having their activities disrupted.”</p>
<p>And it’s not just a problem in the arid West. “We have already seen the economic and social infrastructures stressed in the Southeast as a result of the recent droughts,” he says.</p>
<p>Joe Turnage, a senior vice president with Unistar Nuclear Energy, the nuclear division of Constellation Energy, agrees with Goldstein. “We are in a water-constrained world,” Turnage says. “Thermoelectric power generation as a whole accounts for about 40 percent of freshwater withdrawal, but only about 3 percent of actual consumption. Going forward, we will have to approach the development of new generation alternatives consistent with the development of available water supply.”</p>
<p>According to Michael Hightower, a member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories, nuclear plants currently use the largest amount of water per megawatt hour of any form of electric generation. He also cites research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey<i> </i>in 2007, noting that many major groundwater aquifers are experiencing reductions in water quality and yield. In addition, there is little increase in surface-water storage capacity since 1980. “There are also concerns over climate impacts on surface-water supplies,” Hightower says.</p>
<p>According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), most state water managers expect water shortages over the next decade, even under average conditions. And more to the point: A 2003 heat wave in France caused a water shortage that forced outages at up to 15 percent of the country’s nuclear-generation capacity for five weeks.</p>
<p>“Many of the new nuclear plants being proposed are designed to be built at sites where other plants already exist,” Hightower says. “It may be difficult to license some of these new plants if there are water-availability limitations or thermal limitations.”</p>
<h4>Technology to the Rescue</h4>
<p>EPRI is conducting research on developing, testing, and deploying efficient advanced water-cooling technologies. Options include power-plant siting, meteorological impacts on air-cooled condensers, indirect dry cooling, hybrid tower designs, water-recovery options, wet surface air coolers, advanced bottoming cycles, and preserving once-through cooling options.</p>
<p>EPRI’s Goldstein sees four options as particularly appealing.</p>
<p><i>• </i>Implementing a hybrid system that uses a combination of dry (air) cooling and wet cooling.</p>
<p><i>• </i>Increasing the thermal conversion efficiency of the thermo-electric plant, so more of the heat is used to generate electricity and less is being rejected. “This reduces cooling requirements,” he says.</p>
<p><i>• </i>Replacing a fresh-water source with a non-traditional water source, such as saline water, sewage treatment effluent, agricultural runoff, water produced in association with the drilling of gas and oil, drainage from mines, <i>etc.</i> “Of course, there are costs associated with this, including pre-treatment and post-treatment,” he points out. “There may also be transport costs.”</p>
<p><i>• </i>Recycling water within the plant. For example, technologies<i> </i>currently are being explored to capture a certain percentage of the vapor that normally would be leaving wet cooling towers, condensing it, and then recirculating it.</p>
<p>The first option, hybrid cooling, strikes a chord with a number of people in the industry. However, while the technology is quite appealing for coal and gas-fired plants, it presents challenges for nuclear. “Fossil plants can use, and are using, more dry cooling, over hybrid wet-dry cooling,” points out John Maulbetsch, president of Maulbetsch Consulting in Menlo Park, Calif. “It’s unlikely that nuclear plants will be able to use direct-dry cooling, especially nuclear plants using boiling-water reactors.”</p>
<p>Dry cooling might be possible with pressured-water reactors, but even then, it’s unlikely. “Nuclear people don’t want a direct steam path from the turbine exhaust out to a large open structure, so their options are limited to indirect-dry cooling, where the steam is condensed, and then the hot cooling water from the<i> </i>condenser is taken to an air-cooled heat exchanger, rather than an air-cooled condenser,” he explains. It’s cooled, then returned. These systems are more expensive and less efficient than air-cooled<i> </i>condensers, and as a result “going dry” raises costs for nuclear plants.</p>
<p>Costs also are higher for nuclear plants using hybrid systems. These involve air-cooled condensers operating in parallel with wet-cooling towers. “You use dry cooling until the ambient temperature gets high enough that the dry-cooling system can no longer maintain the condenser back pressure at the necessary level,” he says. “At this point, you phase in the wet cooling.”</p>
<p>This works in nuclear plants and fossil plants. However, in nuclear plants, the dry portion probably needs to be an indirect dry system, rather than using an air-cooled condenser, so it will be more costly and less efficient than a comparable hybrid system in a coal plant. “It’s all doable,” Maulbetsch says. “It’s just more expensive.”</p>
<p>Plant siting also might need some serious dialogue in the industry, according to Sandia’s Hightower. “We may end up in a situation where a lot of the new plants have to be located along ocean and large lake shores,” he says. “A lot of people may not like this siting strategy, but it may end up being necessary if the alternative cooling technologies don’t get licensed.”</p>
<h4>Policy Time</h4>
<p>Would a national policy on water help the situation? No one knows for sure. The only thing experts agree on is that such a policy is not currently on the drawing board.</p>
<p>Doug Houseman, vice president of global energy, utilities and chemicals for Capgemini, has yet to see any policy trends in this direction. “Everyone continues to deal with this issue on a state-by-state, case-by-case basis,” he says. “We don’t have a national water policy, and I don’t think we ever will.”</p>
<p>Unistar’s Turnage is a bit more optimistic. “In terms of policy issues, I think this is just starting to emerge,” he says. “Water is an issue not only for new generation build, but also for existing operating plants. I think this is an idea whose time has come.”</p>
<p>While coordinated legislation on water policy doesn’t seem to be occurring today, Hightower says he’s seeing some activity. “For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is beginning to look at the issue of water availability for power plants and is beginning to understand some of the concerns in their pre-licensing and licensing applications,” he says.</p>
<p>In addition, EPRI realizes the significance of water availability, and has conducted a few workshops on the topic. “EPRI is developing a research program to address some of these concerns,” adds Hightower. In his July 2008 paper, <i>Energy and Water: Issues, Trends and Challenges</i>, Hightower summarizes some of action items being discussed in workshops around the country:</p>
<p><i>• </i>Better resource planning and management—including integrated regional energy and water-resource planning and decision support tools; infrastructure and regulatory policy changes for improved energy and water efficiency; and improved water supply and demand characterization, monitoring, and modeling;</p>
<p><i>• </i>Improved water- and energy-use efficiency—including improved water efficiency in thermoelectric power generation, and reduced water intensity for emerging energy resources;</p>
<p><i>• </i>Development of alternative water resources and supplies—including oil- and gas-produced water treatment for use, and energy efficiency and assessment of impaired water treatment and use;</p>
<p><i>• </i>Accelerated water resources forecasting and management; and</p>
<p><i>• </i>New system analysis approaches for co-location of energy and water facilities.</p>
<p>Even though there are a number of new nuclear plants on the drawing board, none of them are being built yet. “This means we have the time now to think about how we are going to deal with water issues,” says Capgemini’s Houseman. “There’s a lot of thinking that needs to be done, and if we start now, we can probably solve this before it becomes a problem.”</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear">Nuclear</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/0812-FEA4.jpg" width="1202" height="1500" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/blink">Blink</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/capgemini">Capgemini</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellat">Constellat</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellation">Constellation</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/constellation-energy">Constellation Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/cooling-water">Cooling water</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/cost">Cost</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research">Electric Power Research</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research-institute">Electric Power Research Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electric-power-research-institute-epri">Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/epri">EPRI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-regulatory-commission">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/storage">storage</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/technology">Technology</a> </div>
</div>
Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:00:00 +0000puradmin13753 at https://www.fortnightly.comNuclear Fuel Futurehttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2008/02/nuclear-fuel-future
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Nuclear power cost projections should incorporate fuel cost uncertainties.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Edward Kee</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-category field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Energy Risk &amp; Markets</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>Edward Kee</b> is a vice president at CRA International, Inc. His work is focused on nuclear power, electricity industry restructuring and electricity markets. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:ekee@crai.com">ekee@crai.com</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - February 2008</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0802/images/0802-ERM-fig1.jpg" width="2020" height="1244" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0802/images/0802-ERM-fig2.jpg" width="1344" height="952" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0802/images/0802-ERM-fig3.jpg" width="1347" height="869" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0802/images/0802-ERM-fig4.jpg" width="1343" height="1005" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Price volatility is not something that most people would associate with nuclear fuel, after more than twenty years of low, stable and even decreasing nuclear fuel costs. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) data shows nuclear fuel costs declined through the end of 2006 to about 1/2 cent per kWh <i>(see Figure 1)</i>.</p>
<p>However, spot prices for uranium, the largest component of nuclear fuel costs, increased from less than $20 a pound in mid-2004 to an all-time high (even when adjusted for inflation) of $138 per pound in mid-2007<i> (see Figure 2)</i>.</p>
<p>This inconsistency between reported nuclear fuel costs and uranium prices is the result of nuclear fuel purchasing and accounting practices that create a several-year lag between when nuclear fuel costs are incurred and when these costs are amortized.</p>
<p>This lag between component prices and reported costs is not a problem in itself, but may lead to nuclear fuel cost forecasts that are too low in today’s market.</p>
<p>Nuclear fuel cost projections typically consist of current reported costs that are escalated at the rate of inflation. These projections usually consist of a single estimate in each year (<i>i.e.</i>, they don’t consider multiple scenarios). In the past, when nuclear fuel costs were low and declining, this approach was acceptable and may have even been conservative. But this approach is likely to understate projected nuclear fuel cost when nuclear fuel costs are increasing. The use of a single forecast rather than scenarios may not reflect the uncertainty and volatility in future nuclear fuel prices. This can lead to inappropriate financial decisions. In the natural gas industry, for example, reliance on forecasts that extended historical price levels led to significant over-investment in gas-fired combined cycle power plants before the natural gas markets changed in 2000.</p>
<p>Projections of nuclear fuel costs should, like natural gas and other fossil fuels, include price scenarios that reflect a full range of possible nuclear fuel prices.</p>
<h4>Nuclear Fuel Amortization</h4>
<p>Nuclear fuel costs are incurred years before fuel is fabricated and loaded and usually are capitalized, then amortized over projected plant output after the fuel is loaded in the core. This approach to accounting for nuclear fuel was developed as a mechanism for the recovery of nuclear fuel costs in regulated utility rates.</p>
<p>The price of uranium and other components of nuclear fuel may reflect prices that are three or more years in the past. This lag even may be longer if purchases are made under long-term contracts with pricing that is not tightly linked to current spot prices.</p>
<p>Amortized nuclear fuel costs are frequently compared to the fuel cost of coal- or gas-fired units, even though nuclear fuel costs are not marginal generation costs. Instead, nuclear fuel costs are fixed costs.</p>
<p>The historical decline in reported U.S. nuclear fuel cost <i>(shown in Fig.1)</i> is the result of two factors—low historical costs for nuclear fuel (<i>i.e.</i>, prior to recent price increases) and higher capacity factors. But in the future, market trends are expected to result in higher and more volatile nuclear fuel costs. <sup>1 </sup></p>
<p>Global demand for nuclear fuel has grown as existing plants have undergone uprates to increase capacity and have had (or will have) plant-life extensions. This demand is expected to grow even more as a new wave of nuclear plants is built and placed into operation. While new nuclear plants will not be placed in operation until after 2016 in the United States, new nuclear plant development in Russia, China, Japan, and other countries will drive demand for nuclear fuel before then.</p>
<p>Excess uranium production for much of the last 20 years led to low nuclear fuel costs, but also led to chronic underinvestment in uranium mines. The nuclear industry has been using stockpiles of uranium built up prior to 1990, with production of uranium only at about 60 percent of demand in 2006 <i>(see Figure 3)</i>. The prices for other nuclear fuel components, including enrichment, conversion and fabrication, also have increased.</p>
<p>At some point, new uranium mines and new enrichment facilities will be needed to meet growing demand for uranium and enrichment services. The development of these new mines and enrichment facilities will take some time and will require significant capital investment. This investment will occur only if prices for uranium and enrichment are at or above long-run marginal costs, well above the costs over the last 20 years. Additionally, such investments may depend on long-term contracts that assure the mined fuel will have buyers.</p>
<p>Prices for uranium and other nuclear-fuel-cycle components likely will increase as excess supplies are depleted and the markets reach supply and demand equilibrium. The uranium spot market spike in 2007 is an early indicator of this new market dynamic.</p>
<p>It is also possible that nuclear fuel markets will reach equilibrium and return to relatively low and stable prices soon (as predicted in some projections for nuclear fuel cost).</p>
<p>This uncertainty about future nuclear fuel prices makes it important to develop robust nuclear-fuel-cost scenarios.</p>
<h4>Projecting Nuclear Fuel Costs</h4>
<p>The typical approach to forecasting nuclear fuel costs involves using prices related to historical nuclear fuel costs, with near-term projections based on existing contracts, followed by escalation at inflation. Examples from publicly available documents and filings illustrate this approach <i>(see Figure 4)</i>. Specifically:</p>
<p>• A 2003 MIT study on the future of nuclear power <sup>2</sup> assumed nuclear fuel costs were $0.47 (in 2005 dollars) per MMBtu in 2005, and then escalated at 3.5 percent each year thereafter.</p>
<p>• In the Wisconsin Public Service Commission hearing on the sale of the Point Beach nuclear plant, testimony was filed that used five years of detailed forecasts (based on contracts), then escalated the last year of this detailed forecast by 3 percent.<sup> 3</sup></p>
<p>• In the Florida Power &amp; Light determination of need filing for new nuclear units at Turkey Point, Appendix E provided nuclear-fuel-cost projections for existing FP&amp;L nuclear units and the new units.<sup>4</sup> Forecasts for existing units used a detailed forecast until 2011, with the 2011 nuclear fuel cost escalated at 2.5 percent each year thereafter (projections for St. Lucie #2 are shown in Fig. 4). Forecasts for the new Turkey Point units escalated the nuclear fuel costs at 2.5 percent a year.</p>
<p>• The EIA Annual Energy Outlook for 2007 also includes nuclear fuel cost projections, in 2005 dollars. These real projections have been converted into nominal dollars using the EIA AEO reference case inflation rate of 2.03 percent.<sup> 5</sup></p>
<p>These projections generally assume that nuclear fuel markets will return to equilibrium (and low and stable prices) by about 2011, after which nuclear fuel costs generally will go up at the rate of inflation.</p>
<p>While the FP&amp;L determination of need filing includes scenarios for uranium, conversion and enrichment costs, only the reference case for nuclear fuel seems to be used in the overall analysis.</p>
<p>The electricity industry consistently has moved toward using fuel-price scenarios for natural gas, fuel oil, and even coal, reflecting the history of volatile prices for fossil fuels. Incorporating nuclear fuel cost uncertainty through the use of nuclear fuel scenarios may be a low priority because new nuclear plants face other large uncertainties (<i>e.g.</i>, initial cost, licensing, scheduling, financing and regulatory treatment). However, the impact of higher nuclear fuel cost on overall project economics over a 60-year operating life can be significant.</p>
<p>For example, if nuclear fuel were priced at current spot prices, fuel cost might be as high as $1 per MMBtu, almost twice the 2007 cost in all the projections discussed above. An increase of 50 cents per MMBtu (about $5 per MWh, or 1/2 cent per kWh) would mean an increase of about more than $50 million per year in fixed nuclear fuel costs for a new large nuclear plant.</p>
<p>Most new U.S. nuclear plants have yet to enter into nuclear fuel contracts, as procurement of initial core loads for these new plants will not happen for several years. Typically, a new nuclear plant sponsor may wait to procure the initial core load until a firm decision on investment has been made and construction has started, at about the same time the NRC combined construction and operating license (COL) is approved. This means the economic analyses of these new power plants mostly will use nuclear fuel cost projections that are not based on contracts.</p>
<p>However, resource planning and investment decision-making is taking place now. The industry should reflect the uncertainty in nuclear fuel costs in the same way fossil-fuel-price projections reflect uncertainties—using multiple scenarios.</p>
<p>By the time the 2007 increases in uranium spot prices appear in reported nuclear fuel costs and are incorporated into the traditional approach to nuclear fuel-cost projections, some decisions about new nuclear plant investments may have been made already.</p>
<p>Scenarios for nuclear fuel cost should include realistic high and low cases for nuclear fuel. The high case should be much higher than traditional projections, with low cases at about the same level as traditional projections.</p>
<p>A full range of fuel price scenarios will be useful in resource planning for regulated utilities and for investment decision making for merchant plants.</p>
<p>The use of scenarios may show that nuclear plant economics are acceptable across all nuclear-fuel-price scenarios. However, high-price scenarios may mean new nuclear plants will need to undertake some additional efforts to manage future fuel costs. In some cases, it might even mean the nuclear plant investment should be reconsidered.</p>
<p>In either case, knowledge about the potential impact of nuclear fuel costs will inform the significant investment decisions that now are being considered.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Endnotes:</h4>
<p>1. “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2007.10.009">Nuclear Fuel: A New Market Dynamic</a>,” Edward Kee; <i>The Electricity Journal</i>, December 2007; Vol 20/10 pp 54-64.</p>
<p>2. <a href="http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/"><i>The Future of Nuclear Power, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study</i></a>, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.</p>
<p>3. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Docket No. 6630-EI-113, Exhibit JAS/DAW-1, page 13.</p>
<p>4. Florida Public Service Commission, Docket No. 07 0650-EI, <i>Florida Power &amp; Light Co.</i>, Appendix E.</p>
<p>5. <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/graphic_data.html"><i>Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030</i></a>, Fig. 65, Energy Information Administration.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear-fuel-cycle">Nuclear Fuel Cycle</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/energy-risk-markets">Energy Risk &amp; Markets</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0802/images/0802-cvr.jpg" width="1121" height="1500" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/annual-energy-outlook">Annual Energy Outlook</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/china">China</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/cost">Cost</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/eia-0">EIA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/energy-information-administration-0">Energy Information Administration</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/it">IT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/massachusetts-institute-technology">Massachusetts Institute of Technology</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/mit">MIT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrc">NRC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ot">OT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/public-service-commission-wisconsin">Public Service Commission of Wisconsin</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/technology">Technology</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wisconsin-public-service">Wisconsin Public Service</a> </div>
</div>
Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:00:00 +0000puradmin13848 at https://www.fortnightly.comAmerica's Resource Mixhttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2006/07/americas-resource-mix
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Wind gains, but won’t soon alter the fuel mix.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Gary L. Hunt and George Given</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-category field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Power Measurements</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>Gary L. Hunt</b> is president of Global Energy Advisors. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ghunt@globalenergy.com">ghunt@globalenergy.com</a>. <b>George Given</b> is vice president of Global Energy Advisors. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ggiven@globalenergy.com">ggiven@globalenergy.com</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - July 2006</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0607/images/0607-PWR-fig1.jpg" width="2020" height="1233" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0607/images/0607-PWR-fig2.jpg" width="1344" height="1016" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0607/images/0607-PWR-fig3.jpg" width="1352" height="737" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0607/images/0607-PWR-fig4.jpg" width="1344" height="877" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Some power markets may be seeing possible signs of recovery. Spark spreads appear to have bottomed out, and reserve margins have begun to fall in some markets. As Figure 1 shows, recovery is uneven, with many regions still experiencing excess supply and a few regions with peak reserves under 10 percent. The picture becomes somewhat distorted as utilities build new capacity inside their rate base and sign power purchase agreements with wind projects to meet state renewable portfolio standards.</p>
<h4>Retirements on the Rise</h4>
<p>The retirement of old and inefficient power plants was an expected outcome of restructuring as was the overbuilding of new, more efficient plants, but never a noticeable trend. That may be changing as markets become better organized, liquidity grows, environmental regulations are stepped up, and competition becomes more intense.</p>
<p>A large number of announced retirements and mothballing in Texas have occurred, driven by the highly competitive and organized ERCOT wholesale market, open transmission access, a functioning retail market, and the wave of new plant development, which pushed reserve margins past 35 percent. The pressures of competing at the retail level means that companies no longer can rely on their old, inefficient capacity but instead must search out the lowest-cost plants.</p>
<p>On both the West Coast and East Coast, tightening emissions controls may induce retirements or fuel-switching away from coal. Near the close of 2004, New York announced settlements over air quality with AES and NRG Energy. By 2009, AES agreed either to install new emissions controls or shut down three of its small coal-fired plants totaling about 288 MW. In addition, it agreed to convert its 162-MW Greenridge plant to a clean-coal demonstration project. AES owns six coal-fired plants in central New York totaling approximately 1,400 MW.</p>
<h4>Resource Mix and New Build</h4>
<p>In the 1960s through the 1980s, the building boom in coal-fired generation plants led to a 150 percent rise in coal generation. Figure 2 shows coal capacity is now down to 32 percent of U.S. capacity market share, although coal’s generation market share still exceeds 50 percent. However, Global Energy expects the contribution of gas-fired generation to the generation mix to rise significantly over the next 10 years. This increasing U.S. reliance on gas fuel and liquefied natural gas will have important consequences.</p>
<p>A large amount of capacity currently being developed could enter the market over the next few years. As of March 2006, 58,000 MW were in some form of permitting. In addition, approximately 18,000 MW (nameplate) were under construction. Two-thirds of this capacity is natural-gas-fired, and coal accounts for about 4,300 MW. Most of the remaining capacity is renewables such as wind.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, there are 61,000 MW of coal-fired capacity currently being developed in the United States.<sup>1</sup> As indicated in Figure 3, most of this capacity is targeted for the Midwest, WECC, and Southeast. Development activity for coal-fired capacity in the Northeast is almost nonexistent. Not all of this capacity will be built, as the path from proposal stage to construction is full of obstacles. Still, as indicated below, progress is being made, and as of March 2006, 26,000 MW of capacity is being permitted. More than 4,000 MW are under construction.</p>
<h4>Nuclear Energy Consortia Make Progress</h4>
<p>In the United States, the president views nuclear power as part of a solution to environmental concerns and dependence on foreign energy supply. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) has introduced production tax incentives of 1.8 cents/kWh for nuclear energy. Three consortia of electric power companies are in early siting and permitting processes with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for approval of reactor designs that have been used in recent international projects.</p>
<p>Since 2000, existing nuclear facilities in the United States have increased their output level by about 1,500 MW. At the present time, 15,000 MW of new nuclear capacity is being planned, permitted or to be brought online by 2016. However, a great deal of uncertainty surrounds these projects and their estimated online dates given the extensive application process with federal and state regulators and uncertainties over financing. Given the lack of experience in building nuclear power plants in the United States for more than 20 years, in addition to the more competitive business landscape, the cost of constructing a new reactor is a significant uncertainty. Other important obstacles are safety issues and long-term fuel storage, as opposition to the Yucca Mountain site continues.</p>
<p>In a time of rising and volatile natural-gas prices and concerns about coal’s contribution to global warming, this low-cost baseload capacity source has proven to be enormously valuable and profitable. Nuclear assets have had their share of the consolidation trend in the electricity industry. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear plants had record output and stable costs in 2004. Plants in the United States generated a record 788.6 million MWh in 2004, breaking the 2002 record of 780 million MWh. NEI’s figures put the 2004 average net capacity factor at 90.6 percent, trailing only the 91.9 percent achieved in 2002 and the 90.7 percent in 2001. The slightly lower capacity factor, despite the higher output, is a result of the recent nationwide uprating of nuclear units.</p>
<p>The burden of proving the financial viability of nuclear generation and its ability to overcome the two-decades old opposition falls on the shoulders of the first generation of reactors currently being pursued by the three nuclear consortia. Thus far, the NRC has awarded its design certification to four reactor designs including GE’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). GE’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) design still is under review by the NRC, while several others are being prepared for application. NRC approvals of reactor designs are only one of the many regulatory hurdles to nuclear-generation development. More significantly, the next few years are expected to witness some intense public and regulatory discussion before a broad acceptance is established to allow any of the current plans for nuclear facilities to break ground.</p>
<h4>Wind Power Almost Doubled Since 2002</h4>
<p>During the past three years, U.S. wind energy has doubled in capacity thanks to favorable public attitude, improving economics, technological advances, and government support.<sup>2</sup> While making a good start, wind has a long way to go and faces a number of challenges in becoming integrated into supplier and load portfolios.</p>
<p>In the United States, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 2,424 MW of new wind-generating equipment were added to the nationwide fleet in 2005. This considerable capacity added in 22 states easily breaks the 2001 (1,696 MW) record. At year-end, utility scale wind installations in 30 states across the country totaled 9,149 MW. As shown in Figure 4, installed wind capacity in the United States almost has doubled in the past three years (2003-2005). AWEA expects 2006 to be even a more active year for wind development, with additions projected at 3,000 MW. During 2006, wind energy is forecast to decrease the nation’s dependence on natural gas by 5 percent.</p>
<p>Between 2008 and 2016, developers plan to add approximately 5,500 MW of wind turbines. Together, the October 2004 extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC) and the extension of the PTC under EPACT are expected to allow these developers to move ahead with their plans and spur even more wind development given the recent upsurge in natural-gas price volatility.</p>
<p>Another important driver of wind-power projects occurs in efforts by states to promote clean energy consumption. Today, twenty states plus the District or Columbia have passed renewable portfolio standard legislation requiring utilities to provide a certain minimum amount of power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.</p>
<p>Despite significant progress, wind and other renewable energy options face serious economic and technical limitations in displacing conventional fuels. The economic reality is that the future fuel mix for power generation will not change drastically. As GE Energy CEO John Rice put it, “Nothing we know of today could replace the hole that would be left if coal or nuclear were to leave.”</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Endnotes:</h4>
<p>1. This amount excludes the already 45,000 MW of canceled or delayed projects.</p>
<p>2. Assessing the State of Wind Energy in Wholesale Electricity Markets, FERC staff briefing paper, November 2004.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/generation-markets">Generation &amp; Markets</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/power-measurements">Power Measurements</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0607/images/0607-cvr.jpg" width="1121" height="1500" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/aes">AES</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/american-wind-energy-association">American Wind Energy Association</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/awea">AWEA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/energy-policy-act">Energy Policy Act</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/energy-policy-act-2005">Energy Policy Act of 2005</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ercot">ERCOT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/esb">ESB</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ferc">FERC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ge">GE</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/net-capacity-factor">net capacity factor</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrc">NRC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrg">NRG</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nrg-energy">NRG Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-regulatory-commission">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ot">OT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/progress">Progress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/storage">storage</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wecc">WECC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wind">Wind</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/yucca-mountain">Yucca Mountain</a> </div>
</div>
Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:00:00 +0000puradmin14016 at https://www.fortnightly.comPeoplehttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2006/07/people
<div class="field field-name-field-import-category field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">People</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - July 2006</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="boldred">New Opportunities: </span><b>The New York Independent System Operator</b> named <b>Rana Mukerji</b> to its senior management team to serve as vice president, market structures. Mukerji joins the ISO from Raleigh-based <b>ABB Inc.</b>, where he served since 1999 as vice president and general manager, and senior group vice president.</p>
<p><b>CMS Energy</b> shareholders elected an interim appointee to the company's board of directors and also re-elected 10 incumbents. The interim appointee is <b>Jon E. Barfield</b>, chairman and president of <b>The Bartech Group</b>. Barfield was appointed to the board on Sept. 1, 2005.</p>
<p>Shareholders of <b>Pepco Holdings Inc.</b> elected two new members to the board of directors. <b>Frank O. Heintz</b> and <b>Lester P. Silverman</b> were the first directors elected to one-year terms under the restated certificate of incorporation that provides for the annual election of directors. Heintz, 62, is retired president and CEO of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. From 1982 to 1995, Heintz was chairman of the Maryland Public Service Commission. Silverman, 59, is director emeritus of McKinsey &amp; Co., having retired from the international management consulting firm in 2005.</p>
<p><b>TXU Corp.</b> elected the following directors: <b>E. Gail de Planque, Leldon E. Echols, Kerney Laday, Jack E. Little, Gerardo I. Lopez, J.E. Oesterreicher, Michael W. Ranger, Leonard H. Roberts, Glenn F. Tilton,</b> and <b>C. John Wilder</b>. The TXU board of directors also elected <b>C. John Wilder</b>, adding chairman and president to his CEO title; <b>David A. Campbell</b>, executive vice president; <b>David P. Poole</b>, executive vice president and general counsel; <b>M. Rizwan Chand</b>, senior vice president; <b>Anthony Horton</b>, senior vice president, treasurer, and assistant secretary; <b>Kim K.W. Rucker</b>, senior vice president, secretary, and chief governance officer; <b>Stan Szlauderbach</b>, senior vice president and controller; <b>Gina C. Thomas</b>, vice president and general tax counsel; <b>Gaylene M. McMahon</b>, assistant controller; and <b>Diane J. Kubin</b>, assistant secretary.</p>
<p><b>Sempra Energy</b>’s board of directors announced that <b>Joseph A. Householder</b> has been promoted to senior vice president, controller, and chief tax counsel. He also will serve as the chief accounting officer of Sempra Energy. Householder previously served since 2001 as vice president of corporate tax and chief tax counsel for Sempra Energy.</p>
<p>The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) re-elected <b>DTE Energy Co.</b> chairman and CEO <b>Anthony F. Earley Jr.</b> as chairman of its board of directors. <b>John W. Rowe</b>, chairman and CEO of Exelon Corp., was elected vice chairman of the NEI board of directors. Rowe succeeds <b>Robert B. McGehee</b>, chairman and CEO of Progress Energy Inc.</p>
<p><b>Reliant Energy</b> announced that <b>Rogers Herndon</b> joined the company as senior vice president, commercial operations, and origination, effective May 17, 2006. He most recently directed the unregulated commercial activities for PSEG Energy Resources and Trade. Previously, he was responsible for Bank of America’s entry into global electricity markets. Herndon also managed retail supply, natural gas, and power trading activities at Enron and Dynegy.</p>
<p><b>Scott L. Morris</b> was named president and COO of <b>Avista Corp.</b> Morris previously served as Avista Corp. senior vice president and president of Avista Utilities. In addition, senior vice president and CFO <b>Malyn K. Malquist</b> has been named executive vice president and CFO for the corporation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span class="boldred">Retired: </span><b>Frank H. Ault</b> retired as senior vice president of <b>Sempra Energy</b> on July 1, 2006, after 37 years with the company.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/people">People</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/people">People</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/0607/images/0607-cvr.jpg" width="1121" height="1500" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/abb">ABB</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/anthony-f-earley-jr">Anthony F. Earley Jr.</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/avista">Avista</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/baltimore-gas-and-electric">Baltimore Gas and Electric</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/bank-america">Bank of America</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/dte-energy">DTE Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/dynegy">Dynegy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/exelon">Exelon</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/iso">ISO</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/joseph-householder">Joseph A. Householder</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/maryland-public-service-commission">Maryland Public Service Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/new-york-independent-system-operator">New York Independent System Operator</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/pepco-holdings">Pepco Holdings</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/progress">Progress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/progress-energy">Progress Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/reliant-energy">Reliant Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/retired">Retired</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/sempra">Sempra</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/sempra-energy">Sempra Energy</a> </div>
</div>
Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:00:00 +0000puradmin14015 at https://www.fortnightly.comPeoplehttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2005/04/people
<div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - April 2005</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="boldred">New Opportunities:</span> The California Independent System Operator board of governors hired <b>Yakout Mansour</b>, a 30-year veteran of western grid operations, to be its president and CEO.</p>
<p><b>Marsha Johnson</b>, Birmingham Division vice president at Alabama Power, was appointed vice president of diversity and chief diversity officer for Southern Co. <b>Bryan Fletcher</b>, Georgia Power's Northern Region distribution vice president, was appointed vice president of supply chain management at Southern Co. Pete Ivey, vice president of Georgia Power's administrative services, was appointed vice president in Southern Co.'s transmission organization.</p>
<p><b>Christopher M. Reitz</b> has been named interim general counsel and corporate secretary by <b>Richard C. Green</b>, chairman and CEO of Aquila Inc. Reitz currently is assistant general counsel and assistant secretary for Aquila. He succeeds <b>Leslie J. Parrette, Jr.</b></p>
<p>Retired Navy Admiral <b>Frank L. (Skip) Bowman</b> became the new president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Bowman succeeds <b>Joe F. Colvin</b>, who retired after nine years as NEI's top executive. Bowman ended his military career in December 2004 after 38 years in the Navy. At the time of his retirement, he was an admiral serving as director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.</p>
<p>AGL Resources named <b>Robert Duvall</b> vice president and general manager, Virginia and Maryland operations. Prior to this move, Duvall served as managing director of Field Operations at Atlanta Gas Light, another AGL Resources subsidiary. AGL Resources also announced that <b>Myra Coleman</b> had been appointed corporate secretary and securities counsel, effective immediately. She previously served as executive director, corporate governance and securities counsel.</p>
<p>ABB appointed <b>Sandy Taylor</b> as ABB Canada's president and country manager. Taylor will continue his role as Global Business Unit Manager, Oil and Gas, for the Automation Technologies Division. Taylor has more than 20 years' experience working with utility and industry customers in Canada.</p>
<p><span class="boldred">Shuffle Board: </span>The California Independent System Operator board of governors elected <b>Ken Wiseman</b>-appointed to the board last year-as the new chair. <b>Tim Gage</b>, appointed to the board in 2003, was named vice chair. He has been serving as chair of the ISO Finance Committee.</p>
<p>TriEagle Energy LP re-elected two executives to committee positions with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) for 2005. <b>Martin P. Downey Jr.</b>, vice president of energy supply, was re-elected to the Technical Advisory Committee. <b>Robert C. Case</b>, senior vice president and COO of TriEagle, was re-elected to the Retail Market Subcommittee (RMS) of ERCOT.</p>
<p>Washington <b>Gov. Christine Gregoire</b> appointed <b>Mark Sidran</b> chairman of the state's Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). She also appointed <b>Philip Jones</b> to one of the three commission posts. He currently is partner with the Foster Pepper and Shefelman law firm.</p>
<p><span class="boldred">Resigned: </span>National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners President <b>Marilyn Showalter</b> will step down as president upon leaving her position as chairwoman of the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission.</p>
<p>AmeriGas Propane Inc., general partner of AmeriGas Partners, L.P., announced that <b>Martha B. Lindsay</b>, vice president-finance and CFO, would resign her position effective April 15. Until a successor is named, <b>Michael J. Cuzzolina</b> will assume Lindsay's duties.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/people">People</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/people">People</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/abb">ABB</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/agl-resources">AGL Resources</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/alabama-power">Alabama Power</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/california-independent-system-operator">California Independent System Operator</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ercot">ERCOT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/finance">Finance</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/georgia-power">Georgia Power</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/iso">ISO</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/national-association-regulatory-utility-commissioners">National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/ot">OT</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/philip-jones">Philip Jones</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/reliability">Reliability</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/retired">Retired</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/yakout-mansour">Yakout Mansour</a> </div>
</div>
Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:00:00 +0000puradmin10866 at https://www.fortnightly.comThe Need for Nuclear Nowhttps://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2005/02/need-nuclear-now
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>States will play a significant role in the resurgence of nuclear power plants in America.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Joe F. Colvin</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>Joe F. Colvin</strong> is president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - February 2005</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>At times, various conditions align and set the stage for achieving goals that may have appeared to be unreachable. Last summer, the Boston Red Sox were all but eliminated from contention, but then won an amazing stretch of baseball games that resulted in a World Series championship.</p>
<p>A similar scenario can be applied to the U.S. nuclear industry-producer of a steady, low-cost, environmentally important electricity source poised to thrive with the possibility of new plant construction in the not-so-distant future.</p>
<p>The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and state public utility commissions can play a significant role in facilitating the reality of new plant construction-the foundation for economic prosperity and an enhanced quality of life for their states and the nation.</p>
<p>Today, America stands at a crossroads akin to the energy crisis of the early 1970s, when the price of crude oil was at an all-time high and supplies of natural gas appeared to be running short because of price controls.</p>
<p>The country addressed these price and supply risks by investing in new technology and building significant new coal-fired and nuclear capacity. Consequently, nuclear's contributions to U.S. electricity supplies rose from 3 percent in 1973 to 20 percent today, while generation from oil-fueled plants flipped, dropping from 20 percent to 3 percent.</p>
<h4>Same Situation, Different Decade</h4>
<p>The energy landscape today is much the same. The price of crude oil is at, or near, an all-time high. We're placing pressure on natural gas supply and facing the prospect of sustained elevated prices, while meeting new demand through "demand destruction" among industries that use natural gas as a feedstock.</p>
<p>It is imperative that we address today's energy challenges just as we managed the crisis of 30 years ago-by investing in our electricity generation and transmission infrastructure.</p>
<p>The Department of Energy forecasts a 50 percent increase in electricity demand over the next 20 years, which portends a dramatic increase in capital investment in energy infrastructure, including advanced nuclear and coal-fired power plants that represent the backbone of the electricity supply system.</p>
<p>Nuclear and coal power plants represent approximately 70 percent of U.S. electricity supply, but investment in new nuclear and coal-fired power plants has virtually disappeared during the last 12 years. Since Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992, industry has built 271,000 MW of new gas-fired generating capacity. By contrast, only 4,300 MW of new nuclear capacity and 9,500 MW of new coal-fired capacity have come on line.</p>
<p>The nuclear energy industry is committed to building new nuclear plants, and is working on regulatory, legislative, and financial policy initiatives that permit investment in new reactors. Public support for nuclear energy is at an all-time high, according to an October 2004 nationwide survey of U.S. adults by Bisconti Research Inc. Eight out of 10 Americans believe nuclear energy plays an important role in our energy portfolio today, and more choose nuclear energy as the electricity production fuel for the future than any other source.</p>
<p>Congress in 1992 completely overhauled the federal licensing process for new nuclear power plants, providing an opportunity to obtain all regulatory approvals before significant capital investment is made. As a result, that industry is confident that the new licensing process addresses the tribulations encountered during construction of today's nuclear plants-costly delays and design changes, long construction periods, and cost overruns.</p>
<p>Vision2020, a plan from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), envisions meeting growing energy demand with new reactors early in the next decade. The industry continues to focus on bringing more certainty to capital costs for new reactor designs and on quantifying the business risks associated with new large power plants. NEI expects that the nuclear industry can start building the next generation of plants later this decade.</p>
<p>Regardless of capital cost reductions achieved by the industry, large coal and nuclear power plants share a common challenge. They are capital-intensive technologies with long lead times. Combined-cycle gas plants cost $600/kW to $700/kW and take two to three years to build. Coal and nuclear plants are expected to cost $1,200/kW to $1,400/kW and take four to five years to build. But in the long run, nuclear and clean coal plants are less expensive to operate than gas plants because they provide significant price stability.</p>
<h4>State Support</h4>
<p>The federal government must play a crucial role in providing financial incentives to stimulate investment in new baseload generating technology. But the industry and the federal government cannot rebuild our electricity infrastructure alone. State regulatory commissioners and other state energy officials must participate.</p>
<p>NARUC can help facilitate billions of dollars in private-sector investment by:</p>
<ul>
<li>Providing assurance of investment recovery for projects prudently managed and completed;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Supporting the creditworthiness of well-managed projects by authorizing long-term power purchases that preserve the consumer's interest in stable prices; and</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Working with the private sector to define and develop innovative approaches to project structure-approaches that apportion risks and rewards equitably between companies and consumers.</li>
</ul>
<p>Several states have developed innovative approaches that need to be recognized. Alabama, Mississippi, and Indiana permit various ways of recovering approved environmental costs. Iowa has legislation in place that permits pre-approval of recoverable construction costs. Wisconsin has enacted new legislation designed to balance the needs of the private sector and consumers, which may serve as a useful model.</p>
<p>Wisconsin Energy (WE) is proposing two new 615-MW, coal-fired power plants under its Power the Future program, backed by the investment protection afforded by the Wisconsin legislation and public service commission (PSC) orders. The new capacity is built and operated by a non-regulated subsidiary, and leased back to its utility affiliate, We Energies.</p>
<p>During construction, the unregulated company will receive a return on capital invested in the project equivalent to the weighted cost of capital, with lease payments recovered by We Energies through ratemaking. Once the Wisconsin PSC agrees to a lease payment, the payment cannot change for the life of the lease, and the lease payments are fully recoverable through customer rates. Further, because the PSC has responsibility for reviewing capital costs, ratepayers are protected from cost overruns.</p>
<p>These state actions are evidence of how cooperative engagement by public officials on such vital public policy issues can serve the national interest. The NEI hopes other states can work with the industry to develop similar approaches suited to their particular needs.</p>
<p>Someone once wrote that "ill-fortune is the failure to anticipate." In too many circumstances throughout history, the failure to take responsibility for confronting serious issues when they're most manageable proves far more costly in the long run. As we look ahead to the next two decades, it's clear that America must take decisive action now to secure our energy future.</p>
<h4>Essential Asset</h4>
<p>Over the next two decades, it's going to take a concerted effort to make sure America has the electricity it needs from a diverse group of energy sources to support a growing economy and meet its environmental goals.</p>
<p>The nuclear energy sector has a strong foundation on which to build. Our 103 nuclear power plants supply electricity to one in every five U.S. homes and businesses. These plants are a strategic national asset because nuclear power is the only expandable, large-scale energy source that is emission-free and can meet the baseload electricity demands of our growing population and economy. Emission-free nuclear plants play a vital role in meeting our clean air goals and the president's commitment toward reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy.</p>
<p>Nuclear plants are operating safely at extremely high levels of efficiency, with industry-wide annual capacity factors in the 90-percent range. Nuclear power plants are low-cost producers, running on average between $20/MWh and $25/MWh, and they contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the strength of the U.S. electric supply system.</p>
<p>Nuclear power plants are a strategic national asset that justifies a systematic, disciplined program to build new nuclear power plants in the years ahead. It would be impossible for the United States to have a coherent, forward-looking energy policy without nuclear energy, and state regulators have a vital role to play as the industry considers building new nuclear power plants.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/states">The States</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1"><a href="/article-categories/nuclear">Nuclear</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Department: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/department/perspective">Perspective</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/0502-PER-Colvin.jpg" width="584" height="827" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/bisconti-research-inc">Bisconti Research Inc.</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/commission">Commission</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/department-energy">Department of Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/electricity-infrastructure">electricity infrastructure</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/energy-policy-act">Energy Policy Act</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/energy-policy-act-1992">Energy Policy Act of 1992</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/naruc">NARUC</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/national-association-regulatory-utility-commissioners">National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nei">NEI</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear">Nuclear</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-energy-institute-nei">Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-power">Nuclear power</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/nuclear-power-plants">Nuclear power plants</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wisconsin-psc">Wisconsin PSC</a> </div>
</div>
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:00:00 +0000puradmin10843 at https://www.fortnightly.com